유치권부존재확인 청구의소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 21, 2013, the Plaintiff (former 2 Savings Bank; hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) filed an application for the auction of real estate rent with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on March 21, 2013, and the auction procedure was commenced on March 22, 2013 (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).
B. On June 5, 2013, the Defendant reported the right as a lien holder in this court with the purport that the Defendant occupied the second floor of the instant building without receiving KRW 200 million construction cost as a construction contractor who newly constructed the instant building.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant built the building of this case and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant occupied the building of this case as the lien holder, and instead, it is a case construction company and ice construction company (hereinafter " excessive construction").
The construction of the instant building as the contractor is the new construction of the instant building. Even if Da case construction was not a construction of the instant building, in light of the Defendant’s assertion, it cannot be deemed that C directly constructed the instant building at its own expense and it was merely an independent construction of the instant building. Thus, the Defendant’s claim against Da is merely a wage claim and thus cannot be deemed a claim arising from the instant building. Therefore, there is no right of retention of the Defendant as to the instant building. 2) The Defendant’s assertion and Da case construction merely lent a construction license, but it actually occupied the second floor of the instant building from January 10, 2013 because it was impossible for the Defendant to receive construction payment from Da, the owner of the instant building, and thus, the Defendant has a right of retention on the instant building.
B. Determination 1 confirms the absence of the same rights as in the instant case.