beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the portion to be determined additionally as follows. As such, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant, after a part of the final and conclusive judgment against the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the right of retention against the defendant, on the ground that there is no benefit of confirmation, and thus, the defense prior to the merits is unlawful.
However, the Plaintiff asserts that the claim for construction cost of this case, which is the secured claim of the instant lien, has expired within the extent not contrary to res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment in a prior suit, and as long as the Defendant applied for a voluntary auction on each of the instant real estate based on the instant lien and the said voluntary auction procedure is in progress, the Plaintiff needs to stop it. Therefore, the Plaintiff is deemed to have a benefit in confirming the non-existence of the instant lien.
The defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.
B. On October 7, 2010, the Defendant agreed to pay the Defendant KRW 150,00,000 to the Defendant by preparing and delivering a letter of payment for the construction cost to the effect that “The payment of KRW 150,000,000 as a result of the settlement of the subcontract price of this case was not made,” and accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the secured claim of this case’s right of retention runs the ten-year extinctive prescription from October 7, 2010, as a separate claim for the instant claim and the construction cost of KRW 150,000,000, which is the date of the said letter.
However, in light of the facts acknowledged earlier, it is nothing more than that the tobacco industry prepared to the Defendant on October 7, 2010, stating that it would pay the construction cost under the instant subcontract, and at the same time, entered into an agreement with the due date.