logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.03.06 2017가단58616 (1)
유치권존재확인의소
Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is legitimate or not.

Lawsuits for confirmation shall be allowed in respect of legal interests in confirmation when there is a danger existing in the rights or legal status, the obtaining of judgment on confirmation is the most effective way to solve the dispute fundamentally, and in addition, there is no effective and adequate means.

The Plaintiff sought confirmation of the existence of a lien against the Defendant as to each of the instant real estate inasmuch as the Plaintiff had a claim for construction cost arising with respect to each of the instant real estate against the Defendant. However, considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, each of the instant real estate was transferred to a third party by voluntary auction prior to the date of closing argument of the instant case.

The right of retention is a right that the creditor may refuse to deliver the article to the owner of the article until he is reimbursed for a claim that has arisen with respect to the article of another person. Even if the defendant is not in the current position of the owner of each real estate of this case, and even if the plaintiff is awarded a favorable judgment in the lawsuit of this case against the defendant, the judgment does not confirm the existence of the right of retention concerning each of the real estate of this case, the existence of the right of retention concerning each of the real estate of this case, the existence of the right of construction payment claims related to each of the real estate of this case, and the validity of the judgment does not affect the successful bidder of each of the real estate of this case. If the plaintiff intends to exercise the right of retention for each of the real estate of this case, the purpose of the judgment can be sufficiently achieved by filing a lawsuit against the successful bidder seeking confirmation of existence of the right of retention.

arrow