logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가합21984
유체동산인도
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 3240 million with respect to the factory land and factory buildings owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The list submitted pursuant to Article 6 of the Factory and Mining Foundation Mortgage Act (hereinafter “factory Mortgage Act”) includes CNC Plas Bevel-C, CNC Plas M/C (hereinafter “instant cutting”).

B. On May 15, 2014, the Daegu Bank filed an application for voluntary auction with the Ulsan District Court A regarding real estate on May 15, 2014. The decision of voluntary auction was rendered on May 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant auction”); and the Defendant received a successful bid of real estate on October 27, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 3-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s water access is not an accessory of the cutting machine, but was established after the completion of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the Daegu Bank, and thus, the Plaintiff has ownership.

In addition, the defendant renounced ownership in the auction procedure.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver a copy to the plaintiff.

B. Defendant water is an accessory of cut machines and also included in the list of machinery and appliances in accordance with Article 6 of the Factory Mortgage Act, and is included in the auction property.

Therefore, the defendant acquired the ownership of the water through the full payment of the sale price, and there is no fact that he renounced the ownership in the auction procedure.

3. Determination

A. According to each description of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, the plaintiff received a written estimate for the production of Haba in B on May 20, 2013, and on May 21, 2013, the plaintiff issued a tax invoice of KRW 47,119,050 for the supply value of Habn beamline in C on May 21, 2013.

arrow