beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
3. Paragraphs (3) and (3) of the decision of the court of first instance.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the request for extradition
A. Considering that Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 15 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 collected the purport of the whole pleadings in the video of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "E apartment") that is part of the E apartment consisting of 8 and 114 households, Dong-dong 14, Dong-dong, Nam-si, Namyang-si, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on the above real estate in the name of the plaintiff on February 26, 2009; the Selection C completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the real estate in the name of the plaintiff on February 21, 2012; the defendant asserted a right of retention and the fact that he occupies and uses the instant real estate from May 15, 2010 to the present date.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to C to the designated parties presumed to be the present owner of the instant real estate.
B. Around December 2007, the Defendant concluded a construction contract with respect to the construction cost of Boan Comprehensive Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd., the contractor of the E apartment (hereinafter “Yan comprehensive Construction”), and E apartment B, with the construction cost of KRW 420,000,000, and completed the interior construction. Since only KRW 80,000,000 out of the above construction cost was paid, the Defendant asserted that he had the right to attract the instant real estate from the Boan Comprehensive Construction until the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 340,00,000 is paid.
In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant has a claim for construction cost as to the construction comprehensive construction comprehensive, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the above defense by the defendant is without merit.
1. The defendant is the contractor of the apartment around December 2007.