logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.29 2015나2039843
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. There is no defendant's lien on the real estate listed in the attached list.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2012, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “NFFC”) entered into a real estate security trust agreement with NFFC as a first beneficiary and a trustee with respect to real estate listed in B and its attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) in order to secure a loan to A (hereinafter “instant trust agreement”).

B. On August 14, 2013, NFF made a public auction notification on the instant building, etc. and conducted a public auction procedure (hereinafter “instant public auction procedure”).

C. On August 19, 2013 and February 26, 2013, the Defendant notified NFFC that “A claim for construction cost of KRW 568,80,000 against B in relation to the construction of the instant building has been made and is exercising a lien on the instant building to secure this.”

On the other hand, on September 27, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired a preferential right to a claim against NFFC and the instant building, etc. through a joint asset management corporation, and NFF notified A of the assignment of the above assignment on September 30, 2013 and October 1 of the same year, and publicly notified the fact of the assignment of the above assignment to A on October 7, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 5 and Gap evidence 8 through 11 (which include each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's assertion of the right of retention cannot be viewed as delaying the procedure of public auction due to the defendant's assertion of the right of retention or falling into a bid price. Thus, the plaintiff has no interest to seek confirmation of non-existence of the right of retention

The lien holder may not demand the buyer to reimburse the secured claim.

However, the lien holder can still refuse to transfer the real estate which is the object of the custody until the secured claim is repaid.

arrow