logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.07.23 2014다54502
건물명도등
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below with respect to the person liable to repay the secured debt of the right of retention, the court below held that the defendant asserted as the secured debt of the right of retention for the apartment of this case as stated in the judgment

1. 3(b)(3)(1)(3) of each registration of land and buildings, education tax and damages for delay thereof, management expenses from August 2, 2001 to February 2, 2008, management expenses, 6) the free voting time expenses, 7) the claims equivalent to the subrogation registration expenses are related to E and F, which are the deceased I’s heir, and E and F are the person liable for repayment, and the plaintiffs, who are the purchaser in the auction procedure, are not liable for reimbursement.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the lien in the auction procedure.

2. As to the scope of the secured claim of the lien

A. “Claims arising in relation to an article” under Article 320(1) of the Civil Act includes not only cases where claims arise from an object itself, but also cases where claims arise from the same legal relationship or factual relations as the right to claim the return of an object, unless it is contrary to the principle of fairness, which is the original purpose of

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da16942 Decided September 7, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 1976

9. See Supreme Court Decision 76Da582 delivered on 28. b.

The judgment below

According to its reasoning, in full view of the circumstances as stated in its reasoning, the court below held that the defendant's claim as the secured debt of the right of retention on the apartment of this case is the time of the original adjudication on E and F.

1. (3) (b) (i) of the apartment collection of this case, the 2,3,5, and the 6th part and the remainder of the apartment collection of this case, and the 2.3rd part and the 3rd part and the 2nd part of the 6th part and the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the

(c).

arrow