logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.07.12 2016가합2349
유치권존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C, D, and E newly built a building of the first underground floor, the third floor above ground, the total floor area of 1,937,06 square meters on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) around 198, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. C and G have not completed the construction of the instant building with the permission from the head of Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City on August 19, 2005 to alter the purpose of construction, substantial repair, and use of the instant building.

C. C around November 201, with respect to the remainder extension work that has been completed, around November 201, the name of the construction firm was “H art hall extension and remodeling construction”; the construction cost was KRW 1,500,000; and the construction cost was contracted to the I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”).

On September 23, 2011, I subcontracted to the Plaintiff the fireproof Art Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the extended construction works.

E. The Defendant received a successful bid for the instant land and buildings in the public sale procedure, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land and buildings on January 6, 2014 due to public sale on December 26, 2013.

F. The Plaintiff reported the right of retention by asserting that “the construction cost of the instant building was not paid KRW 240,000,000 in connection with the construction of the instant building” in the said public sale procedure.

G. The Defendant removed the instant building on April 2016, and the Plaintiff’s defect in order to remove the instant building up to the instant extension period was removed.

H. At present, the instant building remains in the state of suspension of construction (the part of extension interrupted by construction shall be the same as the real estate listed in attached Table 1; hereinafter referred to as “instant extension”), and the Plaintiff occupies the instant extension portion.

【Unsatisfy-founded facts, Gap’s statements, 1 through 6, 8, 9, 10, 19 through 24, and Eul’s statements, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 9 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff completed the instant construction work around December 10, 201.

arrow