logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.08.17 2015가합2245
유치권확인
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

The facts are based on the plaintiffs' claim for the construction cost of the building in this case, which was awarded by MTM Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "MTM") on July 4, 2013, and completed the construction work, but did not receive the construction cost. The plaintiff A was awarded a contract with MTM on March 20, 2013 to complete the construction work in this case, and completed the construction work in 812,90,000 won, but it was not paid KRW 312,90,000 out of the construction cost, while the plaintiff B completed the construction work in this case after being awarded a contract with MTM for the new construction of the building in this case. The plaintiff B completed the construction work in 95,500,000 won from MTM on July 5, 2013, but did not receive the construction cost.

Nos. 2 through 4, 6, 7-1 through 3, and 10-8 of the evidence Nos. 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings. The auction for the building of this case and the acquisition of the defendant's ownership are completed on October 31, 2013 after the completion of the construction of the building of this case.

A evidence No. 1-2 No. 1-2, D, a creditor of MT, applied for a compulsory auction on the instant building and its site owned by MTT, and made a decision to commence a compulsory auction on February 18, 2014, and on December 26, 2014, the instant building and its site were sold to the Defendant on December 26, 201.

Nos. 1-1, 2, 8, 10-1 through 4, and No. 2. The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer due to a compulsory auction under the Ulsan District Court’s registration No. 18147, Jan. 27, 2015 with respect to the building of this case.

On June 2, 2014, the plaintiffs reported their lien No. 1-2. On June 2, 2014, the U.S. District Court E-Real Estate Compulsory Auction case reported their lien with the claim for the payment due as the secured debt, respectively.

A. 5, 9, 13 of the evidence 10-5, 100. 【Ground for Recognition】 There is no dispute, and A.

arrow