beta
Text
1. It is confirmed that the Defendants’ lien does not exist with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2...
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 8, 2014, the Plaintiff, as a mortgagee of each real estate listed in the separate list owned by C (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate rent D with the Suwon District Court, which was rendered on April 8, 2014 from the said subsidization, and the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) commenced. On the same day, the entry registration of the decision on voluntary auction of each of the instant real estate was completed (hereinafter “registration of entry into auction”).
B. Defendant A is the internal director and representative of Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”). At the instant auction procedure, Defendant A filed a lien on each of the instant real estate by asserting that there was a claim for construction cost of KRW 110,000,000 in relation to the remodelling construction of each of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant construction”) on November 5, 2014 (hereinafter “instant construction”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The judgment on the cause of the claim [the plaintiff is seeking confirmation on the existence of the right of retention with Defendant A as the primary defendant in the claim and Defendant B as the primary defendant in the claim, but in full view of the plaintiff's assertion and the whole purport of oral argument, the plaintiff is claiming as above because the real estate lien holder of this case is unclear who is among the defendants. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the actual contents of the claim of this case is seeking confirmation on the existence of the right of retention against the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff's determination is made above.]
A. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1 was that the claim for construction price of this case claimed by the Plaintiff Defendants had not yet arrived at the time of the completion of the registration of entry into the auction of this case. At the time, the Defendants were each of the instant claims.