logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.08.19 2015나12391
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Upon the application of the National Bank Co., Ltd., which is a collateral security right, the auction procedure was commenced for the real estate listed in the attached list E, which is the collateral security right (Cheongju District Court D), and the Plaintiff acquired the collateral security right from the National Bank of Korea.

(hereinafter referred to as “E”, each of the above real estate “E”, “instant real estate”, and “instant auction” (hereinafter referred to as “instant auction”). (B)

On March 13, 2014, the Defendant and the Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter “C”) submitted a report on the right of retention (Evidence 2-2 of the A) to the auction court of the instant case, stating that “In spite of investing KRW 250,00,000 for the purpose of operating a subordinate factory to deliver products to E to the instant real estate, they did not receive any payment, they occupy the instant real estate with the inventory of all the inside machinery and equipment of the factory as the lien holder.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s facility investment funds asserted by the Defendant (hereinafter “facility investment funds of this case”).

A) cannot be deemed as a claim arising from the instant real estate. Since the facilities, etc. installed by the Defendant are merely an accessory to a factory among the instant real estate, and it is difficult to view that the objective value of the aforementioned factory was increased, it cannot be recognized as a secured claim of a lien. Moreover, the Defendant is not allowed to exercise a lien on the instant real estate since it does not occupy the instant real estate, and the Defendant invested KRW 250,000,000 with the Defendant, together with the Defendant C, for the purpose of operating a factory to deliver the instant real estate to E, and as such, the instant real estate has a lien on the instant real estate as it acquired the right, etc.

And the defendant is a director of E. G.

arrow