beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The appeal cost (including the cost of filing an application for the return of provisional payments) shall be borne by the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. C leased a panel, etc. at the construction site of the new construction site of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Dtel (hereinafter “instant building”), but the judgment became final and conclusive on January 26, 2007 by filing a lawsuit against the owner E, F, etc. of the instant building seeking the payment of rent of the said panel, etc. under the Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap41659, and on January 26, 2007, “E and F, jointly and severally, jointly and severally, shall pay C 5% per annum from July 10, 2004 to May 26, 2006, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.”
(hereinafter in this judgment, C’s claim is referred to as “the previous claim of this case”).
C, however, at the voluntary auction procedure for the instant building, three rooms, such as the Gho Lake, Hho Lake, I, etc., of the instant building, were awarded a successful bid and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 6, 2006.
On the other hand, on October 1, 2008, C delegated the J with the exercise of the lien on the instant building, which was based on the previous claim of this case.
C. On June 19, 2015, the Seoul Northern District Court 2015Gahap1943, the Defendant, K, and L (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) filed a lawsuit against the J who claimed the right of retention on the instant building against the Defendant, etc. requesting the Defendant, etc. to surrender 19 units (2 units, including B, M, 19 units, K: N, 11 units, and L: O units, etc.) of the instant building. On October 20, 2016, the said court rendered a judgment that “The J received KRW 13,721,00 from the Defendant, etc., while receiving KRW 13,721,00 from the Defendant, etc., the Defendant shall be sentenced to 11 units, such as the said N units, etc., and two units, such as the above No. 11 units, from Korea, to L, respectively.”
Accordingly, the Defendant, etc. appealed as Seoul High Court 2016Na210233. On September 15, 2017, the appellate court rendered a judgment that “The J received KRW 91,304,61 from the Defendant, etc., and at the same time ordered the Defendant to pay KRW 91,304,61, the Defendant, etc., 11 of the above No. n, etc. to K, and to order L to order two of the above No. n, etc., respectively,” and this judgment was made on September 15, 2017.