유치권부존재확인
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.
2. Of the appeal costs, the parts arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are individually considered.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows. In addition to the determination of a new argument made by the plaintiff in the trial of the court of first instance as to this case, the reasoning of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of
The 2nd sentence of the first instance judgment “2. 26 December 2010” shall be amended to “ December 26, 201,” respectively.
The fourth 7th 7th son of the first instance judgment “Article 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, and 11” shall be deleted, and the “Plaintiff” of the 20th son shall be amended to “Defendant”.
The 5th half of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified to “Y”, and the following shall be added to “Y” after the 14th of the judgment:
【3) The Plaintiff asserts that “Around June 30, 2009, the period of extinctive prescription expired on June 30, 2012 after the lapse of three years from June 30, 2009, on the ground that mining construction was paid to the Defendant by June 30, 2009, even if the Defendant had a claim for the construction cost for mining construction.”
However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, as a mortgagee, could have invoked the extinction of the prescription period of the Defendant’s claim for the construction price as to the mining construction, and as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s claim for the construction price as to the mining construction has expired by prescription on June 30, 2012, as long as the prescription period had been interrupted due to debt approval by preparing a confirmation letter stating that the construction price equivalent to KRW 4.5 billion and the damages for delayed payment, as the building of this case was sold on March 8, 2012.
The 5th to 19th parallels in the first instance judgment are amended as follows. “As seen in the above, the Defendant who asserts the right of retention has the burden of proof regarding the possession as the requisite for establishing the right of retention. However, the Defendant did not own possession of each of the above parts of each of the instant buildings in the first instance trial.