Attorney Kim Jong-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim In-seok, Lee Ho-ho, and Yellow Pulil

2. C Stock Company:

Law Firm Chang-Gong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Jeong Il-hwan

A. Defendant B Co., Ltd.:

1) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

2) From March 2, 2016 to March 2, 2016, the amount of money calculated at the rate of 14,146,99 won per month shall be paid.

B. Defendant C Co., Ltd confirms that there is no lien on the building listed in the attached list No. 2.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

(a) Commencement of the auction procedure;

(1) On February 26, 2015, the registration of the voluntary decision to commence auction (F of the Daegu District Court; hereinafter the court name omitted) by the application of the creditor EF on the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter the “instant land”) owned by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the “D”), and the registration of the compulsory decision to commence auction (I) by the application of the creditor G and H was completed on May 20, 2015.

(2) The creditor G. H filed an application for compulsory auction against the unregistered building on the instant land along with the instant land. On May 19, 2015, after undergoing a survey on the current status of the unregistered building, the auction court rendered a compulsory auction commencement decision (I) with the instant land on May 19, 2015 regarding the building listed in attached Table 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building,” and combined with the instant land, and on May 20, 2015, the registration of ownership preservation following the commission of registration of the compulsory auction commencement decision and the registration of the entry of the said decision on commencement of auction was completed.

(b) Details of a survey on current status;

(1) The photographs attached to the investigation report on the current status of unregistered real estate prepared by an enforcement officer on or around March 4, 2015 in the I Auction Case do not appear in the possession relation or custody of each of the instant real estate, or in the exercise of rights.

(2) In F Auction case, the F Auction case states that "the possession relationship of real estate" in the ‘real estate status investigation report' prepared by an enforcement officer visiting the site on March 5, 2015 includes two buildings being newly constructed as non-marketed buildings, and there is a guidance indication stating that the real estate is a lien holder at the site."

(3) In the F Auction case, the appraisal report prepared by an appraiser visiting the site on March 11, 2015 and around December 12, 2015, stating that the lease relationship is US. 3 containers which are easy to move on the ground of this case are located. On the ground of this case, three buildings (one Dong: 4th floor, one Dong 1st floor, and one Dong 1st unit: basic construction) in the state of construction suspended on the owner’s non-owner’s non-owner’s non-owner’s non-owner’s non-owner’s non-owner’s non-owner’s non-owner’s "in the course of exercising the right of retention"

(4) On May 1, 2015, the banner, which is attached to the "report on the investigation of current status prepared by the architect" in the 1 auction case, is the subject of the exercise of the lien by Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B”), is the subject of the instant building and container boxes.

(5) On June 3, 2015, the enforcement officer of the I auction case submitted a report on the current status of the instant building on June 3, 2015, and submitted a report on the current status of “The construction is suspended when two buildings consisting of the 1st and the 1st and the 1st and the 1st and the 1st and the 1st and the 1st and the 1st and the 1st and the 2nd buildings are in the status of being constructed

C. Report of the defendants' lien

(1) Around May 8, 2015, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) reported the right of retention with the claim for construction price D as the secured claim in the F Auction Case of the instant land.

(2) On May 6, 2015, Defendant B reported a lien in the F Auction Case of the instant land with regard to the claim for the construction cost against D as the secured claim, but around June 17 of the same year, Defendant B reported a lien on the instant building 1).

D. Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership and possession of each of the instant real estate by Defendant B

On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2.5 billion in the auction procedure for each of the instant real estate, and acquired the ownership of each of the said real estate. Defendant B, after the Plaintiff purchased each of the instant real estate, was under the control of the steel gate as hacks and locks.

E. Construction contracts between Defendant B and D

Among the construction contracts for the building of this case concluded between Defendant B and D (hereinafter referred to as the "construction contracts of this case"), the following matters are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 14, Eul evidence 1, 5, and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. Defendant C did not have a claim related to the construction of the instant building, and did not possess the said building. At the time of the discontinuance of the said construction, the instant building was not in the form of an independent building under social norms, so there was no lien thereon.

B. Defendant B did not have any claim for construction cost, the maturity date of which has yet to arrived at the time of the completion of the registration of the entry of the decision on commencing auction of each of the instant real estate, and did not possess the instant building, and thus there is no lien thereon. Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff interfered with the Plaintiff’s exercise of ownership by illegally occupying the entire instant real estate by installing the guard system at will on March 2, 2016, purchased each of the instant real estate in the auction procedure, and correcting the door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door to the construction site. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages from the date of illegal possession to the date of delivery of each of the instant real estate from March 2, 2016.

3. Determination

A. As to Defendant C

Defendant C asserted that “The instant construction was carried out from March 14, 2012 to December 10, 2013, and was aware of the fact that the auction was carried out, Defendant C had the Defendant carry out the instant construction, and had Defendant C carry the instant construction on a pent and fence attached and had Defendant C carry the instant pent and fence in possession.” However, Defendant C would have lost possession of the instant building after December 10, 2013, and if Defendant C again attempted to start possession, such as attaching a pl card with the knowledge that the instant auction was being carried out, it is difficult to deem that the said Defendant had the right to start such possession to the said Defendant, on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by Defendant C, the Plaintiff’s claim for the lien against the Defendant C cannot be recognized as having been actually carried out or maintained by way of staying staff at the construction site of this case, etc.

B. As to Defendant B

(1) Whether a lien is established

A) A lien is established only when a claim arising with respect to the subject matter is due (Article 320 of the Civil Act). Meanwhile, in cases where a lien is acquired after the registration of entry of the decision on commencing auction on real estate owned by the debtor became effective as the registration of the entry of the decision on commencing auction was completed, the lien cannot be asserted against the buyer in the auction procedure on such real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da70763, Jan. 15, 200

B. As seen earlier, Defendant B had a banner stating “in the course of exercising the right of retention” on the instant building prior to the completion of the registration of the entry of the decision on commencing auction on the instant building after the commencement of auction on the instant land. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge additional circumstances, such as the stay of staff members. However, it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant B had actually occupied the instant building prior to the date of the entry of the decision on commencing auction on the instant building, solely on the ground that Defendant B simply posted a banner.

In addition, Defendant B recognized the fact that he received the down payment under the instant construction contract from D, and that the payment period for the completion payment under the instant construction contract is “the time of completion of MF Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-style-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-based-

C. Ultimately, Defendant B’s lien on the instant building is not recognized.

(2) Liability for damages

The Plaintiff acquired the ownership of each of the instant real estate on March 2, 2016; Defendant B occupied not only the instant building but also the entire site of the construction site; and controlled access to the land; and the monthly rent of the instant land is KRW 14,146,99 (= KRW 80,463,480, X 365/173: 12). The fact that there is no dispute between the parties, or that the monthly rent of the instant land is KRW 14,146,99 (i.e., KRW 80,463, X 365/173: 12) is recognized by the evidence No. 15, No. 3, and Q Q’s appraisal; and as such, Defendant B has no right to possess each of the instant real estate. Accordingly, Defendant B is liable to pay damages calculated at the ratio of KRW 14,146,99,99, from March 22, 2016 to

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Young-young

Judges Jinsupool

It is reasonable to see that report is an authorized report.