logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2018.01.09 2017가단52335
유치권 부존재 확인
Text

1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2...

Reasons

Basic Facts

On March 2015, one Vienna Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “IN”) completed the registration of ownership transfer for all or part of each real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) recorded in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate on May 12, 2015 and June 25, 2015 to the Nonghyup Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CF”) for each maximum debt amount of KRW 352,800,000 and KRW 240,000,000.

On April 26, 2016, the Nonghyup Bank applied for the commencement of voluntary auction on the instant real estate, and on May 18, 2016, the registration of the decision to commence voluntary auction on the instant real estate was completed.

(B) On June 23, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against NAN on June 23, 2016 and completed the registration of the transfer of the right to collateral security on July 26, 2016.

In the instant auction procedure, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) asserted that on September 20, 2016, construction of the instant real estate ground factory, and filed a lien report thereon.

On December 8, 2016, the Defendant acquired the above construction cost claim from B.

[Ground of recognition] Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 9, the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the whole purport of the pleading, and Eul's claim for construction cost does not exist in relation to one of the parties. Even if the above claim for construction cost exists, the transfer of the above claim for construction cost is prohibited under the construction contract between Eul and Eul, and there is no fact that the defendant or Eul occupied the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant's right of retention as to the

The defendant's assertion B is one of the UN factories on the ground of the real estate of this case.

arrow