logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.05.24 2016가단13038
점유권(유치권)에 기인한 점유회수
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 26, 2012, Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B”) was awarded six bonds of a partitioned building including real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 31, 2012. The Defendant purchased six bonds of the said building from B on July 9, 2015 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name on July 21, 2015.

B. On November 18, 2011, the Daejeon District Court 201Gahap47912, which filed against the defendant et al., the judgment that "the defendant et al. occupied it as the right holder and the right holder as the construction price claim and the right holder prior to the decision of commencement of each of the orders dated June 14, 201 on the six above partitioned sections and July 16, 201."

C. On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff et al. filed an application with the Daejeon District Court 2013Kahap498 against B’s representative C for a provisional disposition prohibiting possession of real estate in the instant building on the premise that “the fact that the Plaintiff et al. occupied as the lien holder of the instant building prior to June 14, 2010 is recognized.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 6 and 7

2. As to the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits, the Plaintiff asserted that he resigned from the Defendant on August 7, 2015, when he occupied the instant building as a lien holder, and sought the recovery of possession from the Defendant, that he left the said lawsuit, the Defendant brought a lawsuit of recovery of possession against B on April 3, 2014, and withdrawn as of August 4, 2015 on the ground that the Plaintiff was deprived of the Plaintiff’s right of possession on the ground that he resigned from B on April 3, 2014, and that the Plaintiff was aware of the deprivation of possession of the instant building on or around April 3, 2014. Thus, the instant lawsuit claimed that the period of release (excluding the period of exclusion) for one year as stipulated in Article 204(3) of the Civil Act was lapsed.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 9 and 11, the plaintiff is at the time of filing a lawsuit to recover possession on April 3, 2014.

arrow