logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2016.06.22 2015나23230
유치권방해금지
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. An advanced comprehensive development company (hereinafter “Advance comprehensive development”) is a company established for the purpose of construction business, etc., and currently under rehabilitation procedure after receiving a decision on commencing the rehabilitation procedure as the Ulsan District Court 2009 Mad10 on September 18, 2009. The plaintiff is an administrator of advanced comprehensive development, and Sung-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Madb Industry Development”) newly constructs and sells a building indicating real estate in attached Form C and two lots on the ground (hereinafter “the instant construction site”).

B. On July 30, 2008, the Seongdong-gu Development contracted the construction of the instant building (hereinafter “instant construction”) to the advanced comprehensive development entity, which is the contractor, while carrying out the said project as the executor of Seongdong-gu Development as an advanced comprehensive development entity, and entered into a business agreement and an agency contract (hereinafter “instant business agreement”) with the content that the company will receive a loan for land purchase and project costs from the Export Cooperatives, which is the lending financial institution (hereinafter “the instant business agreement”).

C. Around September 12, 2008, an advanced comprehensive development contracted the instant construction from the Seongdong-gu Industrial Development, and started construction around that time, and suspended construction around April 30, 2009.

An advanced comprehensive development had suspended the instant construction from the time of suspending the construction, set up two containers, banners, etc., and occupied the instant building on the instant construction site by setting up a “use of lien” banner, etc. In addition, the Plaintiff occupied the instant building and subcontracted the instant construction.

arrow