유치권부존재확인
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiff shall be revoked.
2. Each real estate listed in separate sheet Nos. 3, 6, and 20.
1. Basic facts
A. After the construction of the pention described in paragraphs 7 through 20 of the attached list Nos. 7 of the same list (hereinafter “instant pention”) on the land listed in the attached list Nos. 1 through 6, the registration of ownership was completed in L’s name on October 24, 2008, and the remaining pention listed in paragraphs 9 through 20, and the registration of ownership was completed in the name of L’s name on June 25, 2009.
B. On June 25, 2009, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 1.66 billion to H, which is transferred to H under the name of L, and completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral for the entire real estate in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the entire maximum debt amount of KRW 1.378 billion, the debtor H and the mortgagee as the Plaintiff.
C. Since then, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction for the enforcement of the above right to collateral security to Seosan Branch M with the Daejeon District Court, the above court rendered a decision to commence auction on June 13, 2014 and completed the registration thereof.
(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). The amount of the contractor’s lien reported is KRW 91,710,368, and damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 54% per annum from July 1, 2008 to December 15, 2014, KRW 320,015,968, Defendant B142,232,393, and KRW 31,677,400, and KRW 54% per annum from July 1, 2014 to December 15, 2014.
D. On January 7, 2015, the Defendants reported a lien on the instant auction procedure, on the ground that the instant claim for construction cost (hereinafter “instant claim for construction cost”) exists with respect to the instant construction project, on the grounds that the said claim for construction cost was secured.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading
2. First of all, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants asserted the existence of the claim for construction price of this case.
Even if the claim for the construction cost is due, this shall apply.