beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.02.05 2015가단31572

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 19, 2013, the Seoul Northern District Court A, Seoul Northern District Court, held that the auction procedure for real estate was initiated with respect to the housing owned by Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the housing on its ground.

B. In the above auction procedure, the court of execution: 346,05,851 won to be actually distributed after deducting the execution expenses from the sale price and interest of the real estate of this case; 15,000,000 won to the Geum River Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Yong River”) which has been distributed as a tenant of small claims in the first order; 2nd order, 831,760 won to Dobong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which is the holder of the right to issue the pertinent tax, and 205,817,202 won to D who has been distributed as a lessee with the fourth order of priority, and 50,000,000 won to the mortgagee, and 50,000 won to the mortgagee, and 4,406,889 won to be distributed as a lessee with a fixed date under the sixth order; 301,000 won to the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who did not demand damages from 10,501,010 won to the Defendant

C. The Plaintiff, who appeared on the date of distribution on June 24, 2014, raised an objection against the total amount of dividends of Geum River case, E, and D. The Defendant raised an objection against the total amount of dividends of the 6rd Geum River, the total amount of dividends of E, the total amount of dividends of D, and KRW 26,72,209 out of D’s dividends.

Accordingly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the Seoul Northern District Court 2014Gahap4075 (Seoul Northern District Court 2014Gahap4075) and received the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the judgment became final and conclusive.

E. Before the date of distribution, the Defendant alleged that the mortgage agreement between E and B was a fraudulent act against E, and revoked the mortgage agreement by Seoul Northern District Court 2014 Ga22509.