beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B is within the connection line of the attached sheet 5,6,7,8,5 among the Jongno-gu Seoul Ega-gu 64.8 square meters.
Reasons
1. Claim for the exclusion of interference with the ownership of the land which is the cause of the claim;
A. The legal superficies claim under the customary law of Defendant B can be set up against the Plaintiff with the legal superficies claim under the customary law. However, if there was a set of a prior mortgage prior to cancellation of a compulsory auction prior to the commencement of a compulsory auction by which the Plaintiff acquired a land ownership, even if the owner of a building identical to the land had already existed at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security, the legal superficies under the customary law can be established even if
In this case, a right to collateral security prior to cancellation of a compulsory auction was established on June 20, 2014 (No. 7, the land register No. 1) and a new construction contract for the building of this case was concluded on August 16, 2017, and it is evident that statutory superficies cannot be established under the customary law.
건물이 동일인 소유에 윽로
B. Defendant C’s right of retention is asserted that the right of retention can be asserted against the Plaintiff in respect of the building with the claim for the construction cost of the building. However, even if the right of retention exists in the building for the snow station, it cannot be asserted against the landowner with the right of retention on the building to be removed unless the building owner occupied or used the land that can be set up against the landowner.
In other words, the defendant asserts that there exists a lien on the land portion by performing construction works such as ground destruction, reinforced concrete, water supply and drainage pipes, septic tanks, sewage disposal holes, etc. on the land portion. However, in order to have a lien on the land, the claim for the construction cost should be recognized to the landowner. The construction for the new construction of the whole building and the construction for the construction for the owner of the building does not cause the claim for the construction cost against the landowner, so a lien on the land
3. The claim for conclusion is reasonable.