logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.04.27 2015가합3068
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 2,500,000 to B on August 2, 2012 for a loan of KRW 36 months and interest rate of KRW 2,50,000,00 with a change in interest rate

6. Around August 6, 2012, 201, as the receipt on August 6, 2012, 59196 of the maximum debt amount, KRW 3,250,000,000, respectively, was registered for establishment of a new mortgage on each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by J as security for the said loan claim by the fraud C.

B. On January 20, 2015, when the Plaintiff lost the benefit of the time due to the Plaintiff’s failure to pay interest on the above loan, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the Jung-gu District Court Goyang Branch D (hereinafter “instant voluntary auction case”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet on January 20, 2015. On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff received a decision to commence voluntary auction from the above court, and the entry was registered on the same day.

C. On September 21, 2015, the Defendant reported the Defendant’s right of retention regarding each of the real estate listed in the attached list in the auction court of the instant voluntary auction case as the secured claim for the construction price of KRW 613,36,000 against the Defendant C. D.

The defendant occupies each real estate listed in the attached list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 8, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 3, 6, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) Since there is no claim for the construction cost reported by the Defendant as the secured claim in the instant auction case, there is no lien on the instant real estate by the Defendant. (ii) Even if the Defendant has a claim for the construction cost against C, the said claim has been more than three years since February 17, 2012, which was completed by the Corporation, and its extinctive prescription expired.

B. Defendant 1) The Defendant’s building on the land of the attached list 1 through 8 of the same list on the land of the attached list 1 through 3 (hereinafter “instant automobile maintenance factory”).

of February 17, 2012, after being awarded a contract for a new construction project.

arrow