logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.06.15 2017가단234258
유치권부존재확인 등
Text

1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiffs the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

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

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 2016, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) on May 27, 2016 due to voluntary auction (Korean District Court D and E).

B. On May 14, 2015, the Defendant’s representative F submitted a lien report of KRW 25,800,000 for the construction cost to the auction court. At present, the Defendant’s representative occupies the instant building as the Defendant’s representative and exercises a lien.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiffs acquired the ownership of the instant building on June 9, 2016, and the Defendant occupied the instant building as of the closing date of pleadings, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiffs, barring any special circumstance.

B. On November 6, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the possession of the instant building was lawful as part of the exercise of the right of retention, as the Defendant was awarded a subcontract for the purification work and the installation of boiler, etc. from the G of Gyeonggi-gun, G of Gyeonggi-do, H Ha-dong and the construction work of the construction work of the construction of the construction of the new building for the four electric source housing, and completed the construction work in around 2014, but was not paid the price. As such, the Defendant asserts that the possession of the instant building was lawful as part of the exercise of the right of retention. 2) In light of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments in the documents and videos set forth in subparagraphs B through C and 13, the Plaintiff’s construction work of the construction of the new building for the four electric source housing, including the instant building, was subcontracted in KRW 25,800,000,000 after completion of the construction work, and even if the construction work was completed on November 12, 2014.

arrow