logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.04.20 2015가단3863
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. It is confirmed that there is no lien for the defendant with respect to the building listed in the annexed sheet.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order of KRW 400,00,000 (Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan59688), and completed the provisional attachment registration as of August 16, 2013, pursuant to the above provisional attachment registration No. 16615 (Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan5688), and applied for a payment order as of January 6, 2014, after receiving payment order from the above court, and applied for a compulsory auction order as of this court B based on the executory payment order original, and the compulsory auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) is in progress with respect to the building of this case after receiving a compulsory auction order on October 2, 2014.

[A] Voluntary auction procedure commenced on February 20, 2014 at the request of the Korea Asset Management Corporation, which is the right to collateral security (this court C; hereinafter referred to as "prior auction procedure").

(B) On December 19, 2014, the prior auction procedure was concluded as the withdrawal of the application, among the progress in duplicate.

On February 3, 2015, the Defendant reported the lien of KRW 97,878,00,00 as the secured claim for the instant building at the instant court on February 3, 2015, where the instant auction procedure was in progress.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 8, 10, Gap evidence No. 13-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s claim for construction price as to the instant building does not exist, and that the Defendant does not occupy the instant building, and thus, the Defendant’s right of retention as to the instant building cannot be acknowledged, and that there is no right of retention as to the instant building.

B. On July 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for internal electrical construction and electric enlargement construction with A, the owner of the instant building, with the construction cost of KRW 97,878,00,00, and the same from July 5, 2013 under the said contract.

arrow