logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.30 2016나78198
추심금
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. Facts of recognition;

(a) Business for the new construction and sale of a main complex building; 1) Business for Dut Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dut Korea”).

A and four parcels in Ansan-si (hereinafter “instant project site”)

3) The business of constructing and selling the main complex building above (hereinafter “instant business”)

As a project executor of the project, the case real estate trust Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “case trust”) on December 31, 2002 as a project executor.

(2) On October 2004, K non-trust was unable to pay construction cost any more to Young Dud Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ykb Construction”), a contractor due to the lack of trust property, and finally, it was disposed of in default.

B. Under such circumstances, the instant public sale and Rottete 1) under the said circumstances, K non-trust conducted a public sale of the instant project site and a building on the ground thereof in accordance with the said trust agreement. In the said public sale procedure, Mdrid Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Madddlon”).

) The instant project site was decided to be a purchaser of the instant project site, and Habre C&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Habre C&C”)

(B) On May 28, 2007, the Plaintiff paid all balance after acquiring the status of the purchaser from Mad loan, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant project site (at the time, the principal complex building under construction on the ground was not a state in which Madd loan rate was 85% and Madddddti was 85% and can not be registered).

(2) On May 31, 2007, Huyang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Syang Construction Industry Co., Ltd.”) was changed to “Acheon Construction Co., Ltd.” on April 29, 2008.

In the lower court, the above company, regardless of whether it was before or after the change.

arrow