(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019가합51895

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) 의정부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019가합51895

유치권 부존재 확인

Text

1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list.

2...

Reasons

1. The real estate indicated in the separate list indicating the claim (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is owned by C Co., Ltd., and the said company took out a loan from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) as security, but it was decided to commence auction on September 11, 2017 on the instant real estate on the ground that the said loan was not repaid.

(A) The plaintiff acquired a collateral security right and a loan from D and completed the succession to the status of the applicant for auction to the above auction court.

In order to be recognized as a lien, the real estate at the time of the entry of the decision on commencing auction shall be occupied, and possession after the entry of the decision on commencing auction shall be against the effect of prohibition of disposition of seizure, and it shall not be constituted as illegal possession.

According to an investigation report on the current status of real estate in an auction case (date of the investigation, September 28, 2017: 40%) only states that “at the time of on-site visit, only the employees of 20 women in the telecomter do not have the relation of possessor or lease, but they do not have the relation of lease.” Unlike others, there is no description that the Defendant occupies the right of retention or any material to presume it, and there is no indication or status that the Defendant occupies the real estate in this case and exercises the right of retention, even the photographs attached to the appraisal report (base date September 28, 2017).

In light of the fact that the right of retention was submitted only on October 2018 after 13 months from the date on which the decision to commence auction was rendered, and that the instant real estate was operated as the telecom at the time of the registration of the decision to commence auction, etc., it is clear that the Defendant did not occupy the instant real estate, and thus, the Defendant was not aware of the fact that the auction was commenced for a long time, but

The defendant only stated that the claim amount is KRW 500 million when submitting the right of retention report, and what is the cause of the claim.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019가합51895

-수원지방법원 2014.08.28 2013가합14470

-울산지방법원 2019.04.04 2018가합25669

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.05.31 2016가합100805

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2015.11.27 2015가단301078