점유회수 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), the auction of real estate was commenced under this Court B or C as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the entry of the decision on commencement of auction was registered on August 17, 2015 and November 17, 2015.
B. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff reported the lien to the above court on the ground that there was a claim for construction cost of KRW 400,000,000 against MSBK Co., Ltd.
C. In the above auction procedure on September 5, 2016, the Defendant obtained the highest bidder a decision to permit the sale and paid in full, and received the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant on October 6, 2016.
On October 6, 2016, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for an order of delivery of real estate with D in this court. On December 30, 2016, the said court rendered a decision of delivery order stating that “The Plaintiff (Respondent in the case of an order of delivery of real estate) shall deliver each of the instant real estate to the Defendant (applicant in the case of an order of delivery of real estate) on the grounds that it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff acquired a lien on each of the instant real estate before the registration of the entry in the order of delivery of real estate
(hereinafter) The Plaintiff filed an immediate appeal with the Daejeon District Court 2017Ra47, but the Defendant received each of the instant real estate by executing delivery in accordance with the extradition order of this case, and thereafter the instant extradition order became final and conclusive as it was withdrawn by the Plaintiff’s immediate appeal.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 17 evidence, Eul 1 through 5 evidence (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 400 million out of the construction price for MSBK Co., Ltd., and the lien holder occupied each of the instant real estate lawfully.
Nevertheless, the defendant is based on the delivery order of this case.