beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B Co., Ltd. is a building listed in paragraph 1 of the attached Table of Real Estate;
B. Defendant B, Inc.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 22, 2010, the Plaintiff received the interior work from Defendant B Co., Ltd. by determining the construction cost of KRW 3.81.6 billion, and the period of July 30, 2010, as the interior construction work for 8 households of the partitioned building of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H6 apartment building, including the building F and G.
The Plaintiff suspended construction with only a part of it.
B. The creditors of Defendant B filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking confirmation of non-existence of a lien against the said 11 household, including the building F and G, etc. of this case. The Seoul High Court, which was the appellate court, concluded the pleadings on December 22, 2016, and rendered a judgment that the Plaintiff had the claim for construction price of KRW 683,093,736, which falls under the flag altitude, against the Defendant B with respect to five households, including the building F and G of this case, on February 7, 2017.
The judgment, which became final and conclusive, recognized the fact that the Plaintiff had occupied the building F and G units of this case by attaching a notice on the exercise of lien and the possession of possession to the entrance from August 2010.
C. Meanwhile, around May 2016, Defendant B changed the correction device after deducting the Plaintiff’s animals in the instant building G from the Plaintiff’s animals, and entered into a contract to sell the instant building G with Defendant D. Defendant D from July 8, 2016.
With respect to the building F of this case, Defendant B opened a correction device around August 2016, and opened the password to change the password.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, 8, Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to the facts found in the claim against Defendant B and D, the Plaintiff occupied the building F and G units of this case based on a lien to secure the claim for the construction cost, but it can be deemed that Defendant B was deprived of possession around August 2016 and around May 2016.
Therefore, Defendant B delivers the instant building F to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B.