logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.10.30 2014가합71692
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. It is confirmed that the Defendants’ lien on real estate listed in the separate sheet does not exist.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 13, 2006, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “the Federation”) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “mortgage”) of KRW 3,710,000,000 with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by D as a creditor against D, with respect to each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,30,000,000 on August 11, 2006.

B. On April 11, 2013, the Suhyup District Court filed an application for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate upon the instant collateral security (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) with the Suwon District Court E, and received a voluntary decision to commence auction on April 11, 2013 from the said court. On the same day, the registration of the voluntary decision to commence auction was completed.

C. On June 5, 2013, Korea EFA acquired the above claim and collateral security against D in accordance with the asset sales agreement, and the Plaintiff was transferred from Korea EFA to Korea under the agreement on June 26, 2013 in accordance with the asset sales agreement.

On June 27, 2013 and June 28, 2013, the Suhyup notified D of the assignment of claims. D.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff registered the transfer of the right to collateral security with the Financial Services Commission, and acquired the right to collateral security against D pursuant to Article 8 of the Asset-Backed Securitization Act.

E. In the instant auction procedure, Defendant A reported the right of retention on each of the instant real estate, with the amount of KRW 168,00,000 for the construction cost as the secured claim on August 19, 2014; Defendant B, on October 6, 2014, with the amount of KRW 150,000 for the installation and operation cost for the operation of the restaurant as the secured claim; Defendant C, on October 6, 2014, with the amount of KRW 120,000 for the installation and operation cost for the operation of the club as the secured claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Defendant A’s assertion

arrow