beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. E’s acquisition of the instant real estate and creation of a collateral security right, on October 1, 2009, acquired the ownership of each building listed in [Attachment List Nos. 2 through 4 (hereinafter “instant land and buildings”) indicated in [Attachment List Nos. 1] and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and granted F Co., Ltd. a collateral security right amounting to KRW 2.820 million with respect to the instant real estate on the same day.
B. As to the instant real estate (1) including the commencement of the instant auction procedure and the Defendant’s report of the Defendant’s right of retention, G, a mortgagee, filed an application for voluntary auction with the Suwon District Court C, and completed the registration of the entry on May 14, 2012 after having received the decision of voluntary auction on May 11, 2012. The F also filed an application for voluntary auction with the Suwon District Court D on June 26, 2012, and completed the registration of the entry on the same day.
(2) After the Plaintiff received a transfer of the claim and collateral security from F Co., Ltd. to E and filed a report on the above facts with the auction court of this case, the Plaintiff received a transfer of the claim and collateral security from F Co., Ltd.
(3) On January 3, 2013, the Defendant entered into a building remodeling contract with E for the building cost of KRW 488,300,000 for the building indicated in the attached Table No. 4 (hereinafter “instant building”) in the instant auction court, and filed a lien report with E for the claim for the construction cost as the secured claim, alleging that the construction was not paid, even though the construction was not completed.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties does not have a right of retention as the defendant does not have a right to claim the construction cost of the building of this case and cannot be deemed to possess as well as the defendant.