유치권부존재확인
1. There is no lien between the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party C with respect to the forest land B with the wife population B 5,107 square meters.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 29, 2008, the Plaintiff completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) with respect to KRW 294 billion with a maximum debt amount, KRW 4 million with respect to forest land B with a wife population as, and KRW 5107 square meters with respect to the land in this case (hereinafter “instant land”).
B. On May 26, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant land based on the instant right to collateral security, and on May 26, 2014, at the present auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) is underway with the Suwon District Court E, which received a decision on voluntary auction of the instant land.
C. In the instant auction procedure on August 6, 2014, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and the Selection Party C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) reported a lien to the effect that “The Defendant, etc. entered into a loan agreement on the instant land for use (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with D for the purpose of constructing a new building on the ground of the instant land, and the Suwon District Court 2012Da23392, Suwon District Court 2392, the damages claim amounting to KRW 323,625,540 due to D’s nonperformance, and is legally occupying the instant land.”
Meanwhile, the Defendant, etc. filed a lawsuit against D on November 7, 2012, seeking damages of KRW 323,625,540 as a result of nonperformance of the obligation as a lender of the loan agreement of this case and refusing to perform the said obligation as above. The said court partially accepted the Defendant, etc.’s claim on September 27, 2013, and rendered a judgment that “D shall pay the Defendant, etc. expenses invested by the Defendant, etc. for new construction of the building in accordance with the loan of this case, and its delay damages.”
In the Seoul High Court case 2013Na202727273 in which both appeals were brought by both parties, D with a partial reduction of the above damages amount on October 14, 2014, and D with the Defendant, etc. 58,99,330 won.