beta
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2016.04.06 2015가단101255

유치권부존재확인

Text

1. Claim for construction cost of KRW 200,000,000 for each land listed in the separate sheet shall be the secured claim.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2012, the Busan Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Usan Bank”) completed the registration of creation of a collateral security right (hereinafter “each of the instant collateral security rights”) with respect to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) on May 2, 2012, with respect to each of the instant lands as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”).

B. On February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of the right to collateral security on the ground of the transfer of confirmed claim on December 30, 2013.

C. Upon the application of the Busan Bank on October 21, 2013, in the case of the auction of the real estate rent B in the Changwon District Court for the each of the instant land, which was commenced on October 21, 2013, the Defendant asserted that there was a lien of KRW 200 million against Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) on each of the instant land as the secured claim and filed a lien report.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, around April 2012, each of the instant lands was already completed the construction of the factory site, and the Defendant thereafter did not perform the construction of the factory site in each of the above lands, so the Defendant’s right of retention against the non-party company as the secured claim does not exist. Accordingly, the Defendant, on December 13, 2012, contracted the construction of the factory site for each of the above lands from the non-party company for KRW 200 million and completed the construction of the factory site around March 2013, as the Defendant is the lawful lien holder, as the construction cost creditor of the above KRW 200 million.

B. Therefore, in the case of a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the plaintiff asserted to deny the fact that the cause of the debt occurred by specifying the claim first, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proving the facts of the legal relationship.