beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 5, 2015, with respect to the new construction of the 6th floor building located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, and the representative of Nonparty E and the constructor F, entered into a new construction agreement with the Seoul Western-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government with respect to the construction period from November 10, 2015 to March 10, 2016; the construction amount was KRW 380 million (the contract amount was KRW 50 million, intermediate payment, KRW 64 million on December 1, 2015, the intermediate payment, KRW 60 million on December 7, 2015, KRW 300,000 on intermediate payment, KRW 110 million on February 5, 2016, and KRW 80,000 on completion of construction, and KRW 50,000 on February 16, 2016).
B. Even after the approval for use of the instant building and registration of ownership preservation, E demanded the Plaintiff C to repair the parts of the instant building, and the Plaintiff C was performing the repair work. On May 16, 2016, the Plaintiff C requested E to pay the remainder of the construction cost of KRW 60 million on the ground of the completion of the construction of the instant building, but E did not pay the remainder within two weeks after the completion of the construction.
C. On May 30, 2016, Plaintiff C concluded a lien execution agreement on the instant building with attorney G and the instant case, the cost of establishing a lien of which is KRW 3 million (hereinafter “instant lien agreement”) while deciding to file a lawsuit against Party B for the claim for construction cost, and Plaintiff C introduced Plaintiff A and B as an occupant for the exercise of the lien and agreed to exercise the lien from May 31, 2016.
Accordingly, at around 08:00 on May 31, 2016, Plaintiff A and B opened the third floor (house) entrance of the instant building with the key owned by Plaintiff C and attached a sign indicating the exercise of lien to the door, and changed the password of the locking device of the front entrance of the building owner.
E. On May 31, 2016, H of the first floor of the instant building.