logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.12 2017나2011481
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant B’s land indicated in attached Tables 1 and 2 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. D’s construction of the instant building, etc. 1) D’s construction of the instant building from May 10, 2009 to May 10, 2009 (hereinafter “instant building”). D’s construction of the instant building as indicated in attached Table 1 List 3 (hereinafter “instant building”).

(2) The construction of the instant construction, the installation of fishing grounds, the planting of trees, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”).

After receiving KRW 20 million for the construction cost, the construction was completed, but it did not receive KRW 150 million for the construction cost from E, and occupied the instant land and buildings to exercise lien. 2) D filed an application for payment order against E with the Jung-gu District Court, Namyang District Court, 201j3188 for the payment of the said unpaid construction cost and delayed payment damages. On September 14, 2011, the said court issued a payment order with the purport that “E shall pay to D KRW 150 million and its delayed payment from the date following the delivery of the duplicate of the instant payment order to D to the date of complete payment, and E received the above payment order on September 20, 2011 and became final and conclusive on October 5, 2015 as E did not raise any objection.

B. On May 7, 2010, F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”) received from E a supply of construction cost of KRW 35 million to install the gate and fence on the boundary of the instant land, and installed the gate and fence around the instant land.

C. As Defendant B’s possession of the instant land and building was not paid the construction price from E, F placed one container installed on the instant land at the time of the construction of the said main gate and fence, as it was left after the completion of the construction work, and occupied the instant land and building by means of placing a mark on the main gate and fence, placing gate locking. (2) On the other hand, D transferred to Defendant C all the instant construction cost claim and lien amounting to KRW 150 million against E on August 13, 2012.

arrow