logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.09.10 2014나2047502
약정금
Text

1. The part against Defendant B among the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff reported the instant lien entered into a housing construction and site creation contract with E and E and E and E and 624 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) with respect to neighboring land, including the third land (hereinafter “the instant land”) and 1/3 shares of 918 square meters in I road (hereinafter “the combination of each of the instant land”) with E and E and E and E and E and E and 624 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”). The Plaintiff entered into a housing construction and site construction contract with E and E and E & E were to build a site for new housing on the said land.

On March 6, 2012, the New Savings Bank filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant real estate with the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch G, and the said court rendered the said auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction”). On April 12, 2012, the Plaintiff reported the lien of KRW 1,397,032,80 as the secured claim (hereinafter “instant lien”) at the instant auction on April 12, 2012.

B. The Defendants, who entered into the instant agreement, wished to receive the instant real estate successful bid at the instant auction, and entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff, who reported the lien at the instant auction on November 1, 2012, as follows (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Article 1 (Waiver of Right of Retention) “A” is fully fulfilled the obligations under Article 2(1) or (2) from “B” and “B” and at the same time waives the lien on the relevant parcel in which the Defendants’ obligations among the real estate in this case have been completed (the right of retention on the cost claim corresponding to the real estate in this case out of the cost of creating the foundation which the Plaintiff invested into the housing complex construction work), and does not exercise any claim related to the said parcel.

In order to avoid misunderstanding, the Defendants are entitled to a housing construction permit on some of the instant real estate under lawful conditions under construction-related laws and regulations.

arrow