logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.07.06 2016나2090043
유치권확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the following Paragraph (2) or the plaintiff’s assertion is additionally determined by this court.

2. From 1 to 5 pages 3, the following shall be dried up to 3 pages 1 to 5, and “A evidence 6” shall be added to [based on recognition].

As the Defendant newly constructed the instant building, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor received a provisional disposition for the conclusion of a security trust agreement and the prohibition of disposal for the preservation of the right to claim for ownership transfer registration as to the instant building on July 5, 2012 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Kahap940, and the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant as to the instant building was completed on July 9, 2012 upon the entrustment of the above provisional disposition order. The Defendant’s Intervenor’s Asia Trust completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the trust on January 24, 2017, as follows.

Around December 2016, the first instance judgment was rendered, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that “The Plaintiff shall jointly exercise the right to retention on the instant building with F Co., Ltd., an existing occupant, and that Plaintiff E had occupied the instant building by directly staying in the Republic of Korea. However, each of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 12, 14, and 15 and the images of evidence No. 13 are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.”

3. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow