(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.08.13 2014가합8172

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.08.13 2014가합8172

유치권부존재확인

Text

1. Claim 215,00,000 won as the Defendant’s claim for the construction price as to the real estate indicated in the attached sheet shall be the secured claim.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs (A, B, C) and D are co-owners who own 1/4 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant site and building”).

B. D leased a part of the second and fourth floor of the instant building to “E” and provided a leasing service with the name of “E”.

D Around May 12, 2014, around May 12, 2014, concluded the following construction contracts with the Defendant:

1. The name of the construction: the construction period of the F Studio 2) construction site in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu: the amount of contract for the construction project from May 14, 2014 to June 30, 2014: KRW 210 million (excluding value-added tax 21 million);

C. On May 21, 2014, Seocheon-gu Fisheries Cooperatives (the mortgagee of the instant building site and building) filed an application for an auction to enforce the right to collateral security with a high-level district court G in relation to the instant building site and building. On May 22, 2014, the said court decided to commence the auction on May 22, 2014.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). D.

In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant filed a lien on August 11, 2014, asserting that the payment of the construction cost was not received from D, and filed a lien on the claim for the construction cost of KRW 215 million as the secured claim.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the allegations by the parties are unclear, the defendant originally reported the right of retention on the building site and building of this case, and accordingly, the plaintiffs and the defendant in this case are deemed to dispute the existence of the right of retention on the building site and building of this case.

Summary

A. Although there is no claim for the construction cost claimed by the Defendant as the secured claim of the right of retention, and the Defendant does not occupy the instant site and building, there is no right of retention of the Defendant on the instant site and building.

B. The Defendant contracted the construction of partitions, etc. from Defendant D to E, and thus, awarded a contract.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.06.26 2017노285

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2017.03.09 2016나11009

-창원지방법원 2016.02.16 2015고단2864

-서울고등법원 2019.04.19 2018나2032751

-부산지방법원동부지원 2013.07.12 2012가합100394