유치권부존재확인청구
1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. East U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S. Co., Ltd.”) completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Nonparty Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S.”) with respect to the registration of the establishment of the Bank of Korea near the Nonparty Co., Ltd. as the maximum debt amount of 2,160,000,000 won as of July 6, 2010.
B. On December 29, 2015, the Industrial Bank of Korea filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate A with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, and received a voluntary decision to commence auction on December 29, 2015, and on the same day, the registration of the voluntary decision to commence auction was completed under the receipt of the Kim
C. On December 29, 2015, the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred the foregoing collateral security and secured claim to the Plaintiff, and notified the transfer of the said claim to the non-party company on December 30, 2015.
On January 19, 2016, the defendant reported the right of retention in the above A case.
[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, Eul evidence No. 8-1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not exclusively occupy each real estate listed in the separate sheet, so there is no Defendant’s lien. 2) In a case where a contractor who was awarded a contract for the construction of a new building installed on the land that cannot be viewed as an independent building under social norms and the construction was interrupted, the Defendant cannot exercise a lien on such fixtures and land, and there is no Defendant’s lien.
B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1) Before the registration of the entry in the decision on commencing auction was completed, the Defendant is in possession of each real estate listed in the separate sheet until now. 2) The Defendant was awarded a contract from the Nonparty Company for not only the “construction work of a building” but also the “civil construction work” as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, but did not receive KRW 237,00,000 out of the construction cost of the flag, and thus, there exists
3. Relevant legal principles and records.