logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.22 2016나2089036
유치권부존재확인청구
Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims that are changed in exchange at the trial are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 9, 2013, on the instant land, the registration of the entry of the decision on commencing auction was completed on September 9, 2013 by the Jung-gu District Court.

B. In the auction procedure on the instant land (hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction procedure”), the Plaintiff won the instant land at a successful bid, and paid the price in full on August 28, 2015.

C. The Defendant continues to possess the instant land from before the registration of the entry of the decision on voluntary commencement of auction was completed on the instant land until the time of the closing of argument in the trial of the party.

On the other hand, in order to prevent the other party from entering the instant land, the Defendant accumulated natural rocks on the surface of part of the real estate in the attached Table No. 1 of the instant land among the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 9, 10, 24 (including various numbers for each item) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the claim for delivery of the land of this case, the plaintiff acquired ownership of the land of this case by selling the land of this case at the auction procedure of this case and in full payment. Thus, unless the defendant does not prove that there is a legitimate title to the land of this case, the defendant has a duty to collect natural rocks accumulated on the land of this case on the land of this case as the owner of the land of this case and deliver the land of this case. 2) The defendant's defense and judgment as to the lawful possession defense under the defendant's lien against the land of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's possession of the land of this case is based on the right of retention, and it is legitimate, so the defendant is the above civil construction cost.

arrow