beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The lawsuit for the part of the claim expanded in the trial shall be dismissed; and
3. Filing an appeal;
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, in the first instance trial, sought the confirmation that there is no lien that “20,000,100 won claim” as the secured claim, at the court of first instance, does not exist. At the trial, the Plaintiff, as stated in the above purport of the claim, increased the secured claim amount and confirmed the non-existence of the lien.
According to the records of this case, the court of first instance ruled that "the defendant does not have any right of retention that can oppose the successful bidder in the real estate auction procedure with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list" in the order of the judgment, and held that "the defendant completed the construction work after the registration of the decision on commencement of auction with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list and acquired the claim for construction price, and the defendant's right of retention shall not oppose the successful bidder in the auction procedure," and in full view of this, even according to the judgment of the first instance court, even if there is no right of retention that can oppose the successful bidder in the auction procedure, and there is no special restriction
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim extended in the trial at the trial is included within the scope of the lien already determined that it cannot be set up against the buyer in the auction procedure at the first instance trial. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful, since there is no legal interest to seek additional confirmation on that part.
2. The grounds for admitting the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(A) The court of first instance also repeats the same arguments in the court of first instance, taking into account the arguments and reasons why the Defendant partly supplemented in the court of first instance, and examining the descriptions of No. 7-1 to 3 of the evidence No. 7 newly submitted in the court of first instance, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable).
3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .