beta
Text
The judgment below
Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part which cited the plaintiff's claim in excess of the winning part of the judgment.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, in full view of the circumstances in its reasoning, the lower court determined that C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was liable to pay the Plaintiff a sum of KRW 2.2 billion as stated in the instant conciliation clause (1) and KRW 7.2 billion as stated in the 2(c) and KRW 9.2 billion as stated in the 2(c).
The judgment below
Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules
2. Examining the record as to the second ground of appeal, the court below was just in holding that C was in excess of the obligation at the time of the establishment of the right to collateral security, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical
3. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 and 4
A. Article 66 of the Civil Code provides that "a contractor of a real estate work may claim the establishment of a mortgage for the purpose of securing a claim for remuneration, which is the object of which is the real estate work, in consideration of the fact that the ownership of the object is completed by the materials and effort of an ordinary contractor, so that the contractor may, in fact, be paid preferentially from the object of the work, by granting the contractor a right to claim the creation of mortgage on the object if the ownership of the object is originally attributable to the contractor, and the status of the contractor is not more strengthened than that of exercising the right of retention on the object of the work.