logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 영월지원 2018.05.03 2017가합10741
유치권 부존재 확인
Text

1. It is confirmed that the defendant's lien does not exist as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2...

Reasons

Facts of recognition

Attached Form

On April 9, 2013, with respect to each real estate listed in the list (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”), voluntary auction was commenced on April 9, 2013, and the auction procedure is in progress as of the date of closing argument of the instant case.

On October 29, 2015, the Plaintiff was merged with the Korean Agricultural Cooperative on April 29, 2015 by Jeju Agricultural Cooperative, a first-class mortgagee, as a creditor to request auction of the Korean Peninsula, which was a mortgagee of the instant real estate.

From November 17, 2015, the right to collateral security (C and the maximum debt amount of KRW 546 million) was acquired by transfer, and the supplementary registration of the right to collateral security was completed on November 17, 2015.

On January 29, 2018, the successor intervenor acquired the above claim from the plaintiff and completed the supplementary registration of the transfer of right to collateral security on the same day.

On the other hand, on July 27, 2014, the Defendant asserted that “the lessee of the instant real estate, as a lessee of the instant real estate, has claimed the right to purchase the attached facilities, etc. and the right to claim reimbursement of expenses have occurred, and the instant real estate has been occupied to secure the claim,” and reported the right to retention

【In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 8, and 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the succeeding intervenor asserts that the defendant’s right of retention on the real estate of this case was not lawfully constituted, and the defendant asserts that the right of retention on the real estate of this case has been legitimately occupied as the lien holder.

In a passive confirmation lawsuit, if the Plaintiff asserts to deny the fact that the cause of debt arises by specifying the Plaintiff’s claim first, the Defendant, the obligee, bears the burden of assertion and certification as to the facts required for legal relationship. As such, in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a lien, the Defendant must assert and prove the existence of the subject matter of the lien and the related claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409 Decided March 10, 2016). As to the existence of the Defendant’s claim, the existence of the claim is examined.

arrow