청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. With respect to cases where this Court applies for the suspension of compulsory execution 2014 Chicago81, November 2014.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not receive KRW 45.6 million out of the construction price, even though gas pipes, warning facilities, and gas boiler construction on the second floor area of KRW 207,33,00 (hereinafter “the instant building”) among the buildings in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon, where the Plaintiff owned C (agent D).
Accordingly, the plaintiff is exercising the right of retention by occupying the building of this case. The order of delivery of real estate of this case issued to the plaintiff who is a legitimate lien holder as the other party is unfair.
Therefore, compulsory execution based on the order to deliver the real estate of this case should be rejected.
2. The order to deliver real estate is a judgment to which only an appeal can be lodged (see Article 136(5) of the Civil Execution Act) and falls under the title of execution stipulated in Article 56(1) of the Civil Execution Act. As such, a request for a judgment to which only an appeal may be lodged shall accrue after the judgment becomes final and conclusive.
(See Articles 57, 56, and 44(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act (see Articles 57, 56, and 44(1) and (2) of the same Act). However, the ground alleged by the Plaintiff itself is merely derived before the real estate delivery order is issued, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground for
In this respect, the plaintiff's claim of this case cannot be accepted regardless of whether the plaintiff is a legitimate lien holder.
3. The Plaintiff’s claim is rejected.