배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On August 24, 2011, Jinju-si, the basic facts C completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 234,00,000 in the future of the Defendant with respect to D Apartment 106, 803 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
After that, the defendant filed an application for voluntary auction of the apartment of this case with the Changwon District Court Jinju Branch B, based on the above right to collateral security, and the above court accepted the creditor's above application on March 7, 2014 and rendered a decision to commence auction, and the above decision to commence voluntary auction was completed on the same day.
In the above auction procedure, the plaintiff filed a report on the right and demand for distribution based on the claim to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,000.
On November 10, 2014, the above court distributed the entire amount of KRW 153,347,472 to be actually distributed to the apartment of this case, which was the date of distribution, to the Defendant, who was the mortgagee, in the first order.
The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and thereafter raised an objection against KRW 14,00,00 among the amount distributed to the Defendant, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on November 17, 2014, which was within seven days thereafter.
[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, Nos. 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. On February 11, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, with the owner of the instant apartment on the condition that the lease deposit is not paid for KRW 25,00,000, and monthly rent for the instant apartment among the instant apartment buildings. The deposit was replaced with the loan to C prior to that date, and is a genuine small-sum lessee who moved into the said building part and completed the move-in report.
Nevertheless, it is unreasonable that the defendant received the distribution prior to the plaintiff in the above distribution procedure.
3. The Plaintiff’s entry in the evidence No. 2, which appears to be consistent with the fact that the Plaintiff is a genuine small-sum lessee who entered into a lease agreement with C, the owner of the instant apartment, is difficult to believe in light of the following circumstances.