점유회수 청구의 소
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. The text of the judgment of the court of first instance is set forth.
1. Basic facts
A. On April 15, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a construction contract with the Defendant to newly construct the second floor as indicated in Paragraph (3) of this Article (hereinafter “instant building”) (i.e., the said construction cost was increased to KRW 321,530,000; hereinafter the said construction work was referred to as “instant construction work”). At that time, the Plaintiff started the instant construction work and completed it on July 2013.
B. After that, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on October 4, 2013 against the Defendant for the claim for the payment of the construction cost under 2013Gahap86566, which was declared in favor of the lower court on September 17, 2014, that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the unpaid construction cost of KRW 282,843,00,00, and delay damages.”
C. Accordingly, the Defendant appealed as Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na52799, and the above court rendered a judgment on September 3, 2015 to the effect that “The Defendant received only KRW 8,038,000 as to the Defendant’s claim for the deduction of defect repair costs, and that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 274,805,00 and damages for delay.”
(B) The defendant's filing of a final appeal is currently pending in the final appeal.
On the other hand, from August 2013, the Plaintiff set the instant construction cost claim as the secured claim, attached the phrase “in the course of exercising the right of retention” on the outer wall, entrance, glass hold, etc. of the instant building, and corrected the entrance, installed one container on the side of the instant building, and exercised the right of retention by having the Plaintiff’s employees visit the instant building two to three times a week.
However, on November 5, 2013, the Defendant opened the instant building which the Plaintiff was corrected and brought about the Defendant’s house, starting to occupy the instant building.
E. On July 2014, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant Representative Director B to interfere with the exercise of rights, and as a result, fine against B.