유치권부존재확인의소
1. It is confirmed that the Defendant’s lien on each real estate listed in the separate sheet does not exist.
2...
1. Basic facts
A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”) is owned by B, who is the husband of the Plaintiff, and B created a collateral security to the Industrial Bank of Korea as the Goyang Branch of the High Government District Court on March 18, 2010 received on March 18, 2010.
B. On October 13, 2014, the Industrial Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Industrial Bank”) filed an application for a voluntary auction to the High Government District Court C with respect to each of the instant real estate based on the foregoing right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction”) and commenced the voluntary auction procedure.
C. During the instant auction procedure, the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred the right to collateral security regarding each of the instant real estate and the secured claim thereof to the Plaintiff, thereby changing the creditor’s name.
In the above auction procedure on December 18, 2014, the Defendant claimed as secured claim the amount of KRW 902,016,000 for construction cost claim against B (i.e., the price of tree supply of KRW 771,215,00 for transplant construction cost of KRW 131,401,00 for transplant construction cost of KRW 131,400 for the instant construction cost claim; hereinafter “instant construction cost claim”) and filed a lien.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The parties' assertion 1) The claim for the construction price of this case, which is the secured claim of the right of retention claimed by the plaintiff by the defendant, did not exist, or the due date has not arrived prior to the registration of the decision on commencing the auction of this case, and there was no relation between the secured claim and each of the real estate of this case, and the defendant does not occupy each of the real estate of this case, and therefore there is no right of retention of the defendant as to each of the real estate of this case. Even if there is a right of retention, the defendant exercises a right of retention solely for the purpose of preventing the auction of this case or for the successful bid of this case, this constitutes abuse of right