beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the part of "1. Facts of recognition" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion does not seem to have actually held a claim for construction cost by the Defendant implementing the instant real estate extension project, and it is deemed that the Defendant had resided in the instant real estate from around 2008, prior to the said extension project, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the instant real estate was lawfully occupied as the lien holder. The part of the Defendant’s construction project was illegally extended, and thus the Defendant’s lien is not established
Even if the lien was established, since part of the real estate in this case was destroyed due to fire that occurred in violation of the defendant's duty of care, the defendant's lien was extinguished.
3. Determination
A. If a contractor who has built a new building as to whether a right of retention exists, occupies the building and claims for the construction cost incurred in connection with the building, the contractor shall have the right to retain the building until he/she is paid the said claims. Such right of retention shall not be extinguished unless there are special circumstances, such as the contractor’s loss of possession or repayment of the secured debt, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da16202, 95Da16219, Sept. 15, 195). The following facts are comprehensively taken into account: (a) the entry of evidence Nos. 5, 13-1, 13-3, and 6 through 9; (b) the testimony and arguments of the witness D at the trial, and the overall purport of the testimony and arguments of the witness D at the trial, namely, ① the contract amount on June 16, 2014 between the limited company (FD) and the defendant as KRW 600,000,000,000 and the construction work of this case (hereinafter referred to as “instant”).