logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.24 2017가단5042046
유치권존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, nine owners of DD (six owners of the Plaintiff, etc., E, F, G) and seven owners of H (hereinafter collectively referred to as “D owner,” “H owner,” respectively, and “owner,” respectively, agreed to implement a reconstruction project with the content of removing the building “I” on both the above ground and constructing and selling a new building.

(hereinafter “instant reconstruction project”). (b)

On May 13, 2002, the owner of the building entered into a construction contract with J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”) to provide the owner of the building with the land to J, and J concluded a construction contract with the content that new apartment units are built on the above land and the remaining apartment units are sold to the owner of the building in general to cover the construction cost and the project cost.

C. On May 6, 2003, the J borrowed KRW 600 million from the Yongsan Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “FE Savings Bank”), due to the lack of construction cost. Of the building owners, eight owners, including the Plaintiff (hereinafter “guarantee owner”), and the remainder of the building owners not guaranteed on this day are “non-guaranteed owner”. Meanwhile, among D owners, six owners, excluding E, F, and G, offered their share of land as collateral and guaranteed their obligations for loans up to the limit of KRW 90 million.

J discontinued the construction due to the shortage of funds in around 2004 and changed on March 29, 2004.

However, on September 6, 2004, the construction was not carried out due to the conflict between some building owners and the Si construction, and the construction was changed to the Si construction to the K information and communication company and the Si construction (hereinafter “NK”), and the case was carried out with K as it is for convenience.

E. Over October 2004, Da case completed the apartment 1 unit (19 households) of the 1st underground and the 9th ground level on the above D ground, and for L provisional attachment without obtaining approval for the use of the above apartment.

arrow