beta
Text
1. To secure the defendant's claim for construction price of KRW 46,770,00 for each real estate listed in the attached list.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff paid the purchase price of KRW 92,98,70 on September 7, 2017 and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the 18th of the same month, when the Plaintiff was determined as the highest purchaser in the voluntary auction procedure conducted to this court C (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).
B. On October 18, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the purport that “The Plaintiff shall not receive the aforementioned secured debt, as it did not receive the construction cost of D D, an occupant of each real estate of this case, and thus, during the exercise of a lien on each real estate of this case, the Plaintiff shall not receive the said secured debt.” The notification reached the Plaintiff around that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no right of retention of the defendant, while the defendant argues that there is no right of retention of the defendant, the defendant occupies each of the real estate of this case to secure the claim for construction price of D amounting to 46,770,000 won.
B. The Defendant, upon examining the judgment, has a claim for the construction cost of KRW 46,770,000 in relation to each of the instant real estate against D.
Since there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant possessed each of the instant real estate as of the date of closing argument of the instant case, the Defendant’s lien on each of the instant real estate is not recognized.
Rather, the following circumstances revealed in Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, namely, the report on the current status of real estate or the list of goods sold at the auction procedure of this case, are indicated as possessing each of the real estate of this case. The defendant did not report the lien in the auction procedure of this case.