유치권부존재확인
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance is amended and added as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. On the 3rd part of the amended part, the “construction work” in the 8th part was amended to “the completion inspection” and the 3rd part was amended to “the completion inspection.”
“This case’s conciliation” added to the following:
2) According to the respective descriptions and images of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 9 of the 6th page 13 through 15 as follows: (a) the Defendant started to occupy the instant building while performing construction works under a contract with Dong-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong-dong”) on January 8, 2013; and (b) on January 3, 2014 upon the application of Jinyang Agricultural Co., Ltd., the site of the instant building, which was owned by Dong-dong Co., Ltd., and was scheduled to change its lot number and land category to H land site at the time of Jin-ri-si, Gin-si, where he owned the building of this case.
hereinafter referred to as "land of this case"
(3) The Defendant’s representative director, who is the owner of the instant land, interfered with the operation of the factory by blocking the entrance of the instant land from November 2013 to November 2014, 2014, to prevent the Defendant’s president from exercising the right of retention on the outer wall of the instant building (the date of inspection: January 24, 2014).
“Contents.”