beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Of the instant lawsuits, the part demanding confirmation of non-existence of lien.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 25, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) awarded a successful bid for each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant buildings”) in the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate L (hereinafter “instant auction”) with the Suwon District Court’s branch branch, which commenced on October 13, 2010; and (b) acquired the ownership of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 5,000,000.
B. Since its incorporation on April 17, 2008, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was a representative director, Defendant C was a director, and Defendant C was dissolved on December 1, 2014, which was after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment, pursuant to Article 520-2(1) of the Commercial Act, and accordingly, the AI became the representative liquidator and Defendant C.
C. On November 8, 2010, the Defendant Company reported the right of retention to the effect that “The Defendant Company has a right of retention that covers the claim for the construction cost of KRW 958,450,000 with respect to each building of this case as the secured claim” before the commencement of the auction of this case, and as of the date of closing argument in the trial, the Defendant Company occupied each building of this case with Defendant C as the occupying assistant under the right of retention that covers the claim for the construction cost of this case as the secured claim.
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)
2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants occupied each of the instant buildings without permission on the ground that there was no title to possess each of the instant buildings owned by the Plaintiff, and that the instant lawsuit against the Defendants constituted unjust enrichment of KRW 80,00,000 due to delivery of each of the instant buildings and unauthorized occupation of each of the instant buildings, and a duplicate of the complaint against the Defendants.