유치권부존재확인
1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part demanding the confirmation of existence of a lien and the real estate indicated in paragraphs (2) and (3) from January 14, 2016.
1. Basic facts
A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was originally owned by Nonparty C. The Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate on August 7, 2014 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 13, 2014 during the compulsory auction procedure commenced upon Nonparty C’s application by Nonparty C money lending Co., Ltd.
B. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant reported to the lien holder on the ground that construction of facilities inside and outside the building among the instant real estate was beneficial costs.
C. Meanwhile, from 1984 to 1984, the Defendant occupied the instant real estate.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 7 (including paper numbers)
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. Since there is no increase in the value of the part constructed by the Defendant regarding the instant real estate for which the confirmation of existence of the right of retention exists, the right of retention on the instant real estate is not recognized to the Defendant.
B. Since there is no right of retention for the Defendant to file a claim for return of unjust enrichment and delivery of the building, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff. From August 13, 2014, the date of acquisition of the Plaintiff’s ownership, to the time the Defendants complete delivery of the instant real estate, to pay the amount equivalent to KRW 500,000 per month by unjust enrichment.
3. Ex officio determination on the claim for confirmation of existence of a right of retention is recognized as cases where receiving a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s legal status’s apprehension and risk. If the Defendant occupies the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, as in the instant case, seeking delivery of the instant real estate becomes a direct means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s ownership apprehension and risk effectively and appropriately. Thus, the Defendant’s seek seeking delivery of the instant real estate becomes a direct means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s ownership apprehension and risk.