(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.11.21 2018가단75990

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.11.21 2018가단75990

유치권 부존재 확인

Text

1. There is no lien for the defendant who takes 123,40,000 won as the secured claim with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2016, NongHyup Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CF”) lent money (hereinafter “the instant loan”) to the non-party dyna (hereinafter “dyna”), and set up a collateral security (hereinafter “each of the instant collateral security interests”) with respect to the real estate owned by DNA (hereinafter “the instant building”) as indicated in the separate sheet, to secure the claim for the relevant loan.

B. After that, as DNA did not pay the principal and interest of the instant loan, the Nonghyup Bank filed an application for a real estate rental auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) against the instant building with the Gwangju District Court Net-Support A, and on May 17, 2017, the entry registration of the decision on voluntary commencement of auction was completed.

C. On June 8, 2017, the Nonghyup Bank entered into an asset acquisition agreement with the non-party L&A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “S&A”) and transferred each of the instant collateral security and the instant loan to E&A instead of the instant loan claims.

Instead, on June 29, 2017, Ep&A transferred all rights and obligations under the above asset acquisition agreement to the Plaintiff, and transferred each of the instant collateral security and the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff.

E. On May 18, 2018, the Defendant asserted that there was a lien on the instant building in the instant auction procedure, and filed a report on the lien.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 (including each number), Gap 5-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the secured claim of the right of retention claimed by the Defendant did not exist or was removed falsely, and the Defendant did not possess the instant building prior to the completion of the registration of the entry of the said decision on commencing the auction on the instant building. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion on the instant building.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.07 2013가합541721

-광주지방법원목포지원 2014.04.10 2013가합10661

-광주고등법원 2014.09.24 2014나11351

-수원지방법원안산지원 2019.01.17 2017가합9890

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.03.27 2017가단76170