logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.21 2015나2000012
유치권확인청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) with the content that each real estate listed in the separate sheet of real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in the contract amount of KRW 3 billion is to carry out the construction of waste ruptures disposal facilities (hereinafter “instant construction”) and completed the instant construction work.

However, since the Plaintiff received only KRW 500 million from B, the Plaintiff has a claim for the construction cost exceeding KRW 700 million against B.

B. In addition, the Plaintiff has the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs, since the Plaintiff installed the demonstration and test container for the pulmonary pressure equipment disposal facility while performing the instant construction work in accordance with the instant real estate.

C. Since the completion of the instant construction project, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate to secure the above claim for construction price or the right to claim reimbursement for beneficial expenses from the date of the completion thereof. Since the Defendant, the owner of the instant real estate, denies the Plaintiff’s right to retention, it should be confirmed that the Plaintiff has the right to retention

2. The Plaintiff presented evidence Nos. 1 (a contract for construction work) and No. 4 (a photograph of pulmonary pressure treatment facilities) as evidence to support the Plaintiff’s instant construction work.

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1 through 4, 6, and 7, the plaintiff representative director D is the representative director of Eul. ② D voluntarily auction on the real estate of this case leased by Jung-gu District Court 2012Kadan293, and Eul, although the plaintiff did not receive KRW 2.5 billion out of the construction price, and submitted a written contract for the construction work and submitted a false lien report, thereby obstructing the auction and obstructing the execution of 10 months. ③ D's appeal and appeal are made.

arrow