유치권 부존재 확인
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit shall be dismissed.
3. The plaintiff's successor's motion to participate in the succession.
1. Grounds to be stated in this part of basic facts are the fourth and fifth of the judgment of the court of first instance;
(f) The following is added to the following paragraph, and except for addition of Gap evidence 7 and 8 to the fifth [based grounds for recognition], the part of the first instance court's "1. Recognizing facts" is identical to the part of the first instance court's "1. Recognizing facts" (Provided, That the part against the co-defendants of the first instance court, which became separate, is excluded).
G. The Plaintiff’s successor intervenor is as above C.
On January 23, 2020, after purchasing the land and buildings of this case at the auction procedure of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 23, 2020, the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the plaintiff was cancelled, and the
2. Determination on the plaintiff's claim and the plaintiff's successor's application for intervention in succession
A. The plaintiff's ground of claim and the ground of application for participation by the plaintiff's successor to the land and building of this case are the collateral security creditor who applied for an auction as to the land and building of this case, and the defendant, by reporting and claiming a lien in the auction procedure, brought about a decline in the successful bid price of the land and building of this case resulting in the risk of reducing the plaintiff's dividend amount, and thus,
Plaintiff
In the above auction procedure, the successor asserted that he purchased the land and building of this case and acquired the object of this case, that is, the object of the lawsuit of this case, and sought confirmation of the non-existence of the above lien along with the application for intervention in succession.
B. Since the risk of the decrease of the dividend amount due to the successful bid at a low price would make the legal status of the mortgagee in the auction procedure, the interests of the mortgagee who removes the above apprehension cannot be considered as a mere factual and economic interest, and therefore, there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the existence of the right of retention against the mortgagee.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da32848, Sept. 23, 2004). However, the Plaintiff’s successor is above.