logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.01.18 2016가합6575
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 5, the lien of Defendant A and the separate sheet shall be described respectively.

Reasons

1. In case of a passive confirmation lawsuit such as a lawsuit seeking confirmation of non-existence of a lien against Defendant A, if the Plaintiff alleged that the cause of the lien was denied by specifying the first claim, the Defendant claiming that the lien is the lien holder bears the burden of proving the existence of the claim in relation to the subject matter, which is the requisite fact of the lien, and the possession of the subject matter.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da99409 Decided March 10, 2016, etc.). Regarding the plaintiffs' assertion that the cause of the defendant A's lien is denied with respect to each real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 1 through 5, the above lien is not nonexistent, and there is no evidence of assertion regarding the defendant A's claim that the lien is the lien holder, the defendant A's claim that there is the requisite fact of the lien, the existence of the claim related to the lien, the possession of the claim related to the lien, and the possession of the object (the defendant submitted a letter of waiver of the lien in the aforementioned E voluntary auction case of each real estate listed in the separate list Nos. 6 through 20, the defendant A submitted a letter of waiver of the lien in the above E voluntary auction case of the court). The above lien does not exist, and the defendant A reported the lien in the auction procedure listed in the separate list No. 1 through 5.

2. Each claim against the defendant B and C

A. The Plaintiff, the mortgagee of each real estate listed in the separate sheet indicating the claim, and the Plaintiff, the mortgagee of each real estate listed in Nos. 7 through 20 of the separate sheet, seeking confirmation that the above lien does not exist against Defendant B and C, who claimed as the lien holder of each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

(b) Defendant B: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3) (2) of the Civil Procedure Act; Defendant C: Judgment by deemed confession (Article 280 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

C. As a result, Defendant B and C with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

arrow