beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.10.18 2017나1724

배당이의

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The case as to the compulsory auction of the immovables B to the Jeonju District Court and Eup.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 29, 2007, the building D ground (hereinafter “instant building”) owned C, the Defendant, who was the dynamics of C, filed a move-in report to the domicile of the instant building on May 29, 2007, and resided in the instant building from around that time to June 2016.

B. On March 18, 2014, the Plaintiff received a decision on provisional seizure of real estate on the instant building and its site based on the loan claim of KRW 40,883,801 under the Loan Transaction Agreement with the Gwangju District Court 2014Kadan1475, Sept. 17, 2012.

C. On April 27, 2014, the Defendant and C drafted a lease contract with the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 100,000,000 from April 30, 2007 to April 27, 2016. The Defendant obtained the fixed date around that time.

On June 25, 2015, at the request of Aju Capital Co., Ltd., a creditor of C, the procedure for compulsory auction of the instant building and its site was commenced as to June 25, 2015, and on March 24, 2016, on the date of distribution of the above auction procedure, the Defendant participated in the distribution based on the claim of KRW 20 million as lease deposit money, and received dividends of KRW 12 million as the priority lessee and KRW 8 million as the lessee with the fixed date. The Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 10,351,343 as a person holding the provisional seizure.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff asserted that the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 100,000 is the tenant who entered into a lease contract with respect to the building of this case and resided accordingly, but it cannot be confirmed whether to pay the deposit and rent, and the preparation of the lease contract is not delayed.

The defendant is the most lessee who did not actually conclude a lease contract with C or was only the loan for use.

B. Defendant C supports mother-child and economically.