beta
(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2014.05.28 2014가단675

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. In order to secure the claim against D, the Plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security, which is 22,50,000 maximum debt amount with respect to the Suwon-gu E-Ba 501 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. In the procedure of the voluntary auction case involving the instant real estate by Busan District Court, the Defendant concluded a lease contract between D and D, which causes 20,000,000 of the lease deposit, and filed an application for demand for distribution.

C. On January 7, 2014, the above auction court distributed the Defendant KRW 19,00,000 to the Defendant, and prepared a distribution schedule that distributes each of the amount of 8,521,296 won to the Plaintiff below KRW 19,126,020.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution, and raised an objection against the amount of KRW 19,00,000 to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on January 10, 2014, which was seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the most lessee who in collusion with D to receive a small amount of lease deposit, concluded a false lease agreement on the instant real estate in collusion with D, and thus, the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The burden of proving the grounds for objection to a distribution also complies with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil litigation. Therefore, in the event that the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim was not constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and in the event that the plaintiff claims that the claim was invalidated or extinguished due to false representation in conspiracy, the plaintiff is liable

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). Each description and image of lives, A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), and a family member D with D’s exclusive area of 84.87 square meters.