beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
(b).
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the defendants consider the assertion that is emphasized or added by this court as stated in the "additional Judgment", and thus, it is cited by the main text of Article 4
2. Additional determination
A. Since F Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Defendants’ assertion (hereinafter “F”), was awarded a contract for remodeling construction of the instant building from Seocheoncheon and completed it, the Defendants had a claim for construction cost regarding the instant building. To obtain payment, the Defendants leased Nos. 402 and 403 of the instant building with the consent of use, which was the owner of the instant building, while exercising a lien on the instant building.
Therefore, F has the legitimate right to possess the Nos. 402 and 403 of the instant building through the medium of the Defendants, and the Defendants occupy the Nos. 402 and 403 of the instant building based on F’s lien. As such, F has legitimate right to possess the Nos. 402 and 403 of the instant building against the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) The Defendants leased the instant building from Seocheon, not F, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants leased Nos. 402 and 403 of the instant building from F [it is reasonable to view that, even if the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with D (F) agent, and paid the deposit to F, the legal effect arising therefrom arises between Seocheon-cheon and Seocheon-cheon, all of which are the principal.
In addition, in the auction procedure of this case, the Defendants submitted a report on rights and a request for distribution as a lessee by making the lessor the lessor as the library, and did not otherwise assert the fact that it is a lease based on the F’s lien.
[2] Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff leased Nos. 402 and 403 of the instant building from F is not acceptable.