유치권존재확인
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Attached Form
32,171,974 won for real estate recorded in the list.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is as follows: (a) the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “as ordered to permit sale on September 21, 2017 and in full payment of the proceeds therefrom,” which read “as ordered to permit sale on September 21, 2017, after obtaining the decision to permit sale on September 21, 2017, in full payment of the proceeds therefrom; (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant specifically emphasized as the reason for appeal as stated in paragraph (2) below; and (c) the decision on the argument that the Plaintiff and the Defendant specifically emphasized as the reason for appeal as stated in the ground for appeal as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, including the attached Form, is as stated in the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial acceptance of the Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. 1) The part concerning the existence of the right of retention 1) Defendant’s argument is that the secured debt of the right of retention (hereinafter “the instant right of retention”) asserted by the Plaintiff as to the instant building in question is the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost against F. The Plaintiff’s claim for the said construction cost expired by receiving KRW 479,60 million from F, and as a result, the instant right of retention is not extinguished and no longer exists. Even if the secured debt of the instant right of retention is considered to be the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost against F. Even if the secured debt of the instant right of retention is considered to be the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost against F, the Plaintiff was prepared and submitted to the lending financial institution, and the Defendant believed that the instant right of retention was not nonexistent, and the Defendant purchased the instant building in the auction procedure with trust and belief that the said documents did not exist, the Plaintiff’s claim for the right of retention violates the principle of trust and good faith and gold. Nevertheless, the first instance judgment was unlawful.