(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.24 2015나4476 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.07.24 2015나4476

유치권부존재확인

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The total cost of a lawsuit shall be borne individually by each party.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the deletion of Paragraph 1(e) from among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. As to the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation that the defendants' above-mentioned lien did not exist in the auction procedure of this case, the defendants asserted that the plaintiff, a collateral security holder, has no legal interest to seek confirmation that the defendants' lien did not exist, as long as the auction procedure of this case was completed upon the completion of dividend payment.

B. Determination 1) In the real estate auction procedure, the lien holder may not claim the successful bidder to repay the secured debt. However, since the lien holder may still refuse to deliver the real estate which is the object of the auction until his/her secured debt is repaid, the bidder in the real estate auction procedure shall make the bid after considering the fact that the object of auction can not be easily delivered from the lien holder after the successful bid, and accordingly, the real estate for the auction purpose is likely to be awarded at a lower price. Accordingly, the risk of the decrease of the amount of the right to collateral security holder due to the successful bid is likely to be successful at a lower price. Since the risk of the decrease of the amount of the right to collateral security holder due to such low price successful bid makes the legal status of the right of the mortgagee at the auction procedure, the right to claim confirmation of the absence of the lien holder reported at the auction procedure is not considered a mere de facto and economic interest (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da32848, Sept. 23, 2004).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-대전고등법원(청주) 2015.06.02 2014나1936

-서울고등법원 2016.03.17 2015나2061185

-대법원 2020. 1. 16. 선고 2019다247385 판결

-청주지방법원 2018.01.18 2017가합200334

-의정부지방법원 2015.03.13 2014가합51159