logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.28 2014나2023971
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3.Reduction of claims in the trial.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In order to secure loan claims against E, the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “the Federation”) completed the registration of creation of each mortgage covering the land listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) on May 4, 207, with respect to the building listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) on December 23, 2009, with respect to the land listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3 of the attached Table No. 8 of May 8, 2007, and the building listed in paragraph (4) on May 8, 2007.

B. Based on each of the above collateral security rights, the Suhyup District Court filed an application for auction to exercise the Fright to each of the instant real estate, and the said court rendered a decision of commencing a sale on April 11, 2013, and the entry registration was completed on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant auction”). C.

1) Around June 5, 2013, 2013, the above loan claims against Suwon, Inc., Korea, Inc., to which the Asset-Backed Securitization Act applies, was transferred in sequence to the Plaintiff on June 26, 2013. The above transfer of claims was publicly announced in daily newspapers pursuant to the proviso to Article 7(1) of the same Act on July 1, 2013. (2) The Plaintiff acquired each of the above mortgage claims, etc. (hereinafter “the instant mortgage claims, etc.”) under Article 8 of the same Act by registering with the Financial Services Commission that the Plaintiff acquired the above secured claims, etc. of each of the instant real estate in accordance with Article 6 of the same Act on June 26, 2013.

In the instant auction procedure, on June 7, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant had a claim for construction cost related to the construction of the instant building, and reported the right of retention.

[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, Gap evidence No. 5-1, Gap evidence No. 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

arrow