토지인도 등
1. The Defendants deliver each land listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
1. The facts of recognition reveal that the Plaintiff purchased each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) in the procedures of Suwon District Court C, D (Joint) real estate auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) on April 23, 2015. The fact that the Defendants occupied each of the land of this case is not in dispute between the parties concerned, or that the Defendants were in possession of each of the land of this case under the separate sheet Nos. 1-3, and No. 1-2, and No. 2, can be acknowledged if the entire purport of the pleadings was neglected.
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are obligated to deliver each of the instant land to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
B. The Defendants asserted that, on June 7, 2012, the former owner of each of the instant lands, Taecheon ethyl Co., Ltd. and E had been awarded a contract for the construction of a site and the construction of floor structures among the construction of each of the instant land’s underground living facilities, and did not receive the construction cost even after completion of the construction work, and that they had a lien on the claim for the said construction cost as the secured claim. Therefore, they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim
In light of the facts acknowledged earlier, the Defendants possessed each of the instant land, and according to the evidence No. 1, the Defendants concluded a construction contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with respect to the construction work of the newly constructed neighborhood living facilities in the attached list No. 1 and No. 2 as of June 7, 2012, the Defendants concluded a construction contract with the amount of construction cost of KRW 315 million as to the construction work of the newly constructed neighborhood living facilities in the instant land (hereinafter “instant contract”).
Even according to the above facts, it is difficult to view that the claim for construction price as claimed by the Defendants is a claim arising with respect to the land indicated in the attached Table 3, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants have a lien on the land listed in the
On the other hand, the Defendants actually do construction work under the instant contract.