2014Da54502 Building Names, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

D Housing Improvement and Redevelopment Cooperatives

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Na14446 Decided July 18, 2014

July 23, 2015

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the person liable for the repayment of the secured claim of the lien

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) (3) registration tax and education tax related to each registration of land and building and damages for delay thereof, (5) management expenses from August 2, 2001 to February 2, 2008, (6) free time expenses, and (7) claims equivalent to subrogation registration expenses are related to E and F, which are the deceased I’s heir, and E and F are the parties liable for reimbursement, and the plaintiffs are not the parties liable for reimbursement in the auction procedure.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the lien in the light procedure.

2. As to the scope of the secured claim of the lien

A. A claim arising in connection with an object under Article 320(1) of the Civil Act includes not only cases where a claim is arising from the object itself, but also cases where a claim arose from the same legal system or fact relevance as the right to claim the return of the object, unless it is contrary to the principle of fairness, which is the original purpose of the lien system (see Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da16942, Sept. 7, 2007; 76Da582, Sept. 28, 2007).

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined as follows: (a) among the claims asserted by the defendant as the secured claim of the right of retention on the apartment of this case, the claims equivalent to the 2,3,5, and the intermediate payment and the remainder of the fixed apartment of this case among the fixed apartment of this case; (b) the maintenance contract deposit, the equal distribution amount, the market maintenance price, and the relocation expenses from the 1st construction project, which the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor should pay pursuant to the sales contract for the apartment of this case; and (c) the claims equivalent to the relocation expenses that the defendant should pay to the head of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City pursuant to the sales contract for State and Public Property

C. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of good faith, the secured debt in the lien, and the relation between the secured debt in the lien and the secured debt in the collateral.

D. On the other hand, it is difficult to accept the lower court’s rejection of the relation to the above (1) claims for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant inputs his own property formed with contributions and liquidation money, etc. to be paid by the members of the redevelopment association to construct the H apartment including the apartment of this case, and the money to be collected by the defendant to the deceased I is a creative money for which the redevelopment association imposed the construction cost of the building in the status of the administrative body, and its substance is a claim for reimbursement of the cost. Thus, the part related to the construction of the apartment of this case among the bonds for the apartment of this case related to the construction of the apartment of this case among the bonds for the apartment of this case,

Nevertheless, the court below denied all the relation between the above claim and the apartment of this case only for the reasons stated in its holding, and determined by misapprehending the legal principles as to relation relation between the secured claim and the goods, which are the elements for establishing the right of retention, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim In-bok

A person shall be appointed.