배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. In the Daegu-gu Seoul-gu District Court E-K real estate auction case on land and building located in the F, each of the said real estate was adjudicated, and the said court drafted the said distribution schedule on January 18, 2018.
The above distribution schedule is with the first priority that Daegu Metropolitan City Dong-gu received the pertinent tax amounting to KRW 52,170, and KRW 331,949,170, and KRW 187,871,479, respectively, by the Defendants (applicant-mortgage) in the second priority.
B. In the case of the said real estate auction, the Plaintiff filed a report on rights and filed an application for demand for distribution with the purport that he/she is a small lessee of the said building (hereinafter “instant building”). On January 18, 2018, the Plaintiff was present on the date of distribution and the said building A.
Under the same distribution schedule as in the same paragraph, an objection was raised against the part of KRW 34 million out of the dividends to the Defendants, and the instant lawsuit was filed on January 25, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, 6 and 7, and purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule should be revised, as stated in the purport of the claim, as it did not reflect the right to preferential reimbursement as a small lessee of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 34 million for the instant building, notwithstanding the existence of the right to preferential reimbursement at the time of the preparation of the distribution schedule.
However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 13 alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is a true tenant of the building of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is a lessee of the building of this case is without merit.
3. The claim of this case in conclusion is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.