(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.22 2015가단70085

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.22 2015가단70085

유치권부존재확인

Text

1. Claim for the construction cost of KRW 948,00,000 as the secured claim for each real property listed in the separate sheet.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The Korean Bank shall, as a collateral, lend money to Sel companies (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on March 20, 2013 with respect to the co-ownership of the non-party company among the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 11, 27, 28, and the list Nos. 2 through 4, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 26 of the separate sheet owned by the non-party company and each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 through 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21, 25, and 26 of the separate sheet No. 1, the maximum debt amount of 9,840,000,000, and the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on August 29, 2013 to the non-party company (hereinafter “the additional maximum debt amount”).

On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred all of the rights, such as loan claims against the non-party company and the right to collateral security established on each of the instant real estate from the bank of Korea, and notified the non-party company of the above transfer on September 30, 2014.

On the other hand, the Korean bank applied for a voluntary auction on each of the instant real estate and issued a decision to commence voluntary auction to the court B on July 1, 2014, and the entry registration was completed on July 8, 2014.

On July 29, 2014, the Defendant reported on July 29, 2014 that the right of retention has been established with regard to the claim for construction cost of KRW 948,00,000 as the secured claim regarding the real estate stated in the attached list No. 18 in the above auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers), and the gist of the argument as to the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff defendant did not possess each of the real estate of this case since the plaintiff did not occupy the real estate of this case effectively before the effect of seizure following the registration of the decision to commence voluntary auction of this case. Thus, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff

Defendant Nonparty 1

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.11.05 2014가합55239

-서울고등법원 2016.07.01 2015나2072048

-수원지방법원 2017.05.26 2016가합74909

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.08.23 2017가단100294

-대구지방법원김천지원 2016.04.22 2015가합15644