beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts: "No reason exists for the certificate of evidence No. 1 and No. 2" in the 3th to 4th to 3th to 4th of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts after the completion of the entry registration of the decision on commencing auction on the real estate owned by the debtor, where a lien has been acquired after the entry of the decision on commencing auction became effective, the portion used for the auction, and the lien is established only when the claim arising on the object is due (Article 320 of the Civil Act). On the other hand, if a lien has been acquired after the seizure became effective, it cannot be set up against the buyer in the auction procedure on the real estate. A contractor who has been awarded a contract for construction works, such as expansion, renovation, etc. of the building owned by the debtor
Even if the right of retention is established as a result of the completion of construction work after the completion of the registration of the entry of the decision on commencement of auction and the acquisition of the claim for construction cost after the seizure became effective, the contractor cannot oppose the buyer in the auction procedure on the ground of the right
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da55214 Decided October 13, 2011, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the health class, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4, Eul evidence No. 5-1 through No. 5-4, and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the instant real estate, the decision to commence compulsory auction was issued to Busan District Court on November 23, 2010, and the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was completed on November 24, 2010, and the defendant C did not complete construction of the instant real estate by the time the said decision to commence compulsory auction was registered.
According to the above facts of recognition, as argued by the defendants, defendant C is the new construction of the 12th E-story building, including the real estate in this case.