beta
Text
1. The opposing power of Defendant B based on the lease agreement between C and Defendant B as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 9, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the debtor F and the maximum debt amount of KRW 1.5 million on September 9, 201 with respect to the land and ten parcels and buildings owned by C and D.
(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.
Based on the instant right to collateral security, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of each of the instant immovables with G with the competent court, and this court rendered a decision to commence voluntary auction on March 5, 2015, and on the same day, the registration of the entry of the decision to commence voluntary auction was completed.
(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.
In the instant auction procedure on May 26, 2015, Defendant B reported to the effect that each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, among the above real estate subject to the auction, has a right to lease based on a lease contract (lease deposit KRW 130 million) with C on July 20, 201, and Defendant A reported to the effect that, on January 4, 2016, each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, among the above real estate subject to the auction, is a right of retention, the amount of construction cost claim equivalent to KRW 60 million for each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (Attachment No. 1, No. 1, No. 2 and KRW 30 million for construction work of new buildings listed in the same list No. 30 million for construction work of new buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A
A. There is no facility to deem that the construction work of an automobile camping site equivalent to KRW 30 million on the ground of the land listed in [Attachment 1] Nos. 1 and 2 in the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was implemented, and there is no evidence to support that Defendant A actually constructed a building listed in the above [Attachment 3].
In addition, Defendant A did not occupy the real estate listed in the attached list No. 1 prior to the commencement of the auction of this case.
(b) judgment;