logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원충주지원 2014.07.03 2014가합3016
유치권부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In order to secure the claim against C (hereinafter “C”), the Industrial Bank of Korea completed the registration of creation of a mortgage on each land listed in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the attached Table C owned by C, and on each land listed in Paragraph 3 of the attached Table E owned by C (hereinafter collectively collectively referred to as “each land of this case”) as to the land listed in paragraph 3 of the attached Table E owned by C (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each land of this case”), as the Cheongju District Aud District Court’s Audio Registry No. 17870, Jun. 8, 2012.

B. On July 10, 2013, the Industrial Bank of Korea applied for a voluntary auction of real estate as Cheongju District Court B with respect to each of the instant land, and received a decision to commence voluntary auction from the above court on July 10, 2013, and the entry registration was completed on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). C.

The Industrial Bank of Korea transferred to the Plaintiff claims against C and the right to collateral security on each of the instant lands.

On September 5, 2013, the Defendant reported the lien by designating KRW 109,60,000 as the secured claim for landscaping and civil construction costs of each of the instant land at the auction procedure of this case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (if there is a tentative number, including ing number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. (1) As to the assertion that there is no secured claim, the summary of the argument cannot be deemed that the Defendant performed landscaping and civil engineering works on each of the instant land. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had the claim for the construction cost, which is the secured claim of the lien, for each of the instant land.

(2) In full view of the evidence Nos. 2, 2, 5, 6, and 7 as a whole, the entire purport of the pleadings is examined as follows: ① around June 8, 2012, C with the Defendant for landscaping and civil engineering works on each of the instant land (hereinafter “instant construction works”) and construction cost of KRW 109,60,000, and construction period.

arrow