유치권부존재확인
1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. Full development, Co., Ltd. purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on July 17, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding the instant real estate on August 11, 2014, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 6, 2014 with the maximum debt amount of KRW 400 million registered on October 6, 2014.
B. On December 2, 2015, C filed an application for voluntary auction with the Changwon District Court D on the basis of the foregoing right to collateral security, and received a voluntary decision to commence the auction of the instant real estate from the said court, and the entry of the decision to commence the auction was completed on the same day.
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction procedure”). C.
On February 22, 2016, the Defendant reported the right of retention by asserting that the instant auction procedure had a claim of KRW 85 million for landscaping on the instant real estate and for the construction of facilities.
The Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid in the instant auction procedure on July 18, 2016.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense
A. Although the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff promised not to raise any objection to the Defendant’s report on the lien, filing the instant lawsuit claiming the confirmation of existence of the lien is an abuse of the right against the good faith principle.
B. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff promised not to raise an objection to the Defendant’s report of lien, and it is difficult to view the instant lawsuit as an abuse of the right solely based on the aforementioned circumstances asserted by the Defendant.
Therefore, the defendant's main defense is without merit.
3. First of all of the determination on the merits, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant currently occupied the instant real estate only with the descriptions of health belts, Eul evidence Nos. 1-5, and Eul evidence Nos. 4, as to whether the Defendant possessed the instant real estate, and otherwise, evidence to acknowledge this.