logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.08.10 2016고단2562
권리행사방해
Text

Defendants are not guilty.

Reasons

1. Defendant A is the representative director of E Co., Ltd.; Defendant B, with F’s south, participated in the process of receiving the successful bid of the 4th and 5th floor of the Nam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City G building (hereinafter “instant building”) in the name of F; and E Co., Ltd., on June 10, 2015, acquired the ownership of the 1st, second, and third floor of the instant building from May 23, 2016 to May 23, 2016, by acquiring the ownership of the 1st, second, and third floor of the instant building.

On the other hand, the instant building reported the right of retention around January 6, 2010 by the victim H, I, J, and K. On or around January 12, 2010 and around April 24, 2015, a unmanned guard device was installed in the building above the building, and a poster called “in the event of the exercise of the right of retention” was posted on the entrance of the first floor of the building above the building as a site A4, and was occupied by the building and exercised the right of retention.

Nevertheless, at around 23:00 on September 21, 2015, the Defendants conspired with 10 persons, including the sons and their relatives of Defendant B, and cut the declines installed in front of the 1st floor entrance, the front of the emergency stairs of the building, and then intruded into the inside of the building, and forced them by using the entrance doors of each unit where the unmanned security guards are installed (one name "one name") and acquired possession of the building of this case.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to gather the building of this case, which is the object of the victims' right of retention, and interfered with the victims' right of retention, and intruded on the building possessed and managed by the victims.

2. Determination:

A. The possession of an article that is the requirement for establishment of a lien under Article 320 of the Civil Act refers to an objective relationship that appears to fall under the factual control of that person in light of social norms, and it refers to only physical and practical control over an article.

arrow