logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.10.13 2015가합23670
유치권존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion is that the subcontractors of Driyang Construction Co., Ltd., which received a contract from the Defendants for the construction of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction”) and directly implement the instant construction and have the claim for the construction cost, such as the purport of the claim.

However, as the Defendants did not pay the construction cost, the Plaintiffs occupied the building of this case by installing placards, etc. and exercise their lien. Thus, the Defendants seek confirmation of the existence of the lien against the Defendants.

2. Determination

A. "Possession of an object which is the requirement for the establishment of a lien" refers to an objective relationship that can be seen as belonging to the factual control of the person in terms of social norms. It does not necessarily mean a physical and practical control over an object, but should be determined in accordance with the concept of society by taking into account the time with the object, spatial relationship with the object, principal relation, possibility of exclusion from others' control, etc. However, in order to have an objective relationship that is subject to such factual control, at least the other person's interference should be excluded.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da205501, Dec. 12, 2013). B.

According to the video of the evidence No. 6-1 to No. 5, each video of the following circumstances: (a) although it is deemed that a banner stating the purport that the plaintiffs exercise the right of retention on the building of this case is installed, it shall be deemed that the plaintiffs were installed, and on the other hand, it may be known that the statement No. 1 attached to the statement No. 6; (b) the defendants visited the construction site of this case and the building of this case on several occasions, but could not find employees of the plaintiffs who manage the building of this case; (b) the defendants installed a new banner stating that the defendants occupied the construction site of this case, and taken pictures therefrom.

arrow