beta
Text
1. It is confirmed that there is no lien for the defendant as to the building listed in the annexed sheet.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 16, 2013, the Plaintiff registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 732 million with respect to the attached building owned by B (hereinafter “instant building”), etc. on the basis of the maximum debt amount, and granted loans of KRW 610 million to B on September 17, 2013 as security.
B. On March 17, 2014, at the request of the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, the procedure of voluntary auction with the Seo-gu District Court Branch C for the instant building was commenced on March 17, 2014, and the entry registration was completed on the same day.
C. On April 15, 2013, the Defendant filed a lien of KRW 430 million with respect to new construction works of the instant building; the period of construction from April 23, 2013 to June 30, 2013; and the period of construction from April 23, 2013 to June 30, 2013, the Defendant concluded that he/she occupied the instant building and exercised the right of retention in order to receive the payment of KRW 175 million out of the construction cost, despite having completed the contract, but failed to receive the payment of KRW 175 million from July 3, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, Eul evidence No. 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In a case where the debtor acquired a right of retention by transferring the construction price to the creditor of the construction work on the real estate after a registration to enter the decision on commencing auction was made on the real estate owned by the debtor in the relevant legal reasoning and the seizure became effective, the transfer of such possession goes against the prohibition of disposition of seizure under Articles 92(1) and 83(4) of the Civil Execution Act, as it constitutes a disposal act likely to reduce the exchange value of the object, and thus, the possessor cannot oppose the buyer in the auction procedure on the ground of such right of retention.
B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da22688 delivered on August 19, 2005).
Judgment
However, from March 17, 2014, the defendant had completed the registration of the decision to commence the auction at will.