beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination
A. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 in Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City B, 530.9m2 underground floors and buildings with 10m2 above ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on October 30, 209, which are completed around October 30, 2009, with respect to buildings with 501m30m2 above ground. The above building owned a claim for construction cost of KRW 300 million with respect to the above building; the Plaintiff acquired KRW 250,000 out of the above construction cost claim from the Oro Construction Co., Ltd.; and C acquired KRW 250,000 from January 201, 2013 with respect to possession of the instant real estate as the exercise of a lien.
B. Under the understanding of C, since the Plaintiff jointly occupies the instant real estate with C from the time of the filing of the instant lawsuit on January 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she holds a lien with respect to the instant real estate as secured claim for construction price of KRW 250 million. However, the possession of the goods that meet the requirements for the establishment of a lien under the Civil Act refers to the objective relationship, which appears to belong to the factual control of the person under social norms, and the evidence submitted by C alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff acquired possession of the instant real estate, in addition to the fact that C occupies the instant real estate, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
C. Rather, in full view of the following facts: (a) in the instant complaint and the briefs, “Plaintiff” and “C” are confused and (b) according to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 15, the Defendant is acknowledged to have sent a letter requesting repair in relation to water leakage in the instant real estate to the receiver C only on or around March 2018, which was after the instant lawsuit was brought. The instant real estate is jointly occupied by the Plaintiff and C.
It is more reasonable to view C as a sole possession rather than a sole possession.
D.
In addition, the lien holder should occupy the custody with the care of a good manager, and the consent of the debtor.