beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims that have been changed in exchange in the trial are dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. The plaintiffs' assertion
A. On March 12, 2012, Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Plaintiff Co., Ltd.) contracted a factory remodeling project, civil engineering project, and concrete packaging project with respect to the instant real estate by the Nonparty Co., Ltd., and D was awarded a contract with the Nonparty Co., Ltd. on July 30, 2012 for an office work on the instant real estate and completed each construction work on or around September 2012, each of which was not paid even after completion of the construction work. Since L Co., Ltd, the representative director of the Plaintiff Co., Ltd., occupied the instant real estate in order to secure the above claim for the construction cost, there was a lien against the Plaintiffs as the secured claim for the said construction cost.
B. Since the Plaintiffs occupied the instant real estate as the lien holder and left from the possession on December 7, 2013 by the Defendant on the part of the execution in accordance with the delivery order of real estate, which the Defendant raised against the Plaintiffs regarding the instant real estate, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, the possessor, as the occupant.
3. Determination
A. In case where the debtor acquired a right of retention by transferring the construction price to the creditor of the construction price for the said real estate after a compulsory decision on commencement of auction has been entered in the registration of the compulsory commencement of auction on the real estate owned by the debtor, such possession goes against the prohibition of disposition of seizure under Articles 92(1) and 83(4) of the Civil Execution Act, since it constitutes a disposal act which might reduce the exchange value of the object, and thus the transfer of such possession goes against the prohibition of disposition of seizure under Articles 92(1) and 83(
(c).