(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.30 2016가합2096

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) 수원지방법원 2017.05.30 2016가합2096

기타(금전)

Text

1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim for confirmation of non-existence of lien shall be dismissed.

2. The defendants shall list the plaintiff (attached Form 1).

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff: (a) won the instant real estate at the Suwon District Court C’s auction on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”); and (b) paid the sales price on May 17, 2016.

B. In the instant auction procedure on March 24, 2015, the Defendants concluded a construction contract with respect to the instant real estate from D, E, D, and E to supply and demand for KRW 59,00,00 for construction cost as well as for the replacement and electrical construction of rain or machinery and equipment as well as for the internal and external interior and external interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior works (hereinafter “instant construction contract”). From August 20, 2014, the Defendants performed the said construction from around August 20, 2014. The Defendants asserted to the effect that, upon payment from D and E, they currently have a claim for construction cost of KRW 501,60,000 against D and E, and they reported a lien to the effect that they occupy the instant real estate to secure the claim for the said construction cost.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the legitimacy of this part of the lawsuit in this case, ex officio, as to whether the non-existence of a lien is legitimate.

In this case, the plaintiff is an owner who acquired ownership of the real estate of this case in the auction procedure of this case, seeking damages for the delivery of the real estate of this case and tort against the defendants, and separately seek confirmation of the absence of a lien by the defendants as to the real estate of this case. In this case, seeking the delivery of the real estate of this case against the defendants is a direct means to remove the plaintiff's ownership's apprehension and risk valid and appropriate. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of non-existence of a lien is a direct means to remove the plaintiff's ownership in this case.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2014.06.11 2013가단215156

-부산고등법원(창원) 2016.01.21 2015나22666

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.22 2017가단5072436

-수원지방법원성남지원 2019.11.27 2018가단235223

-청주지방법원충주지원 2015.12.09 2015가단2976