beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.08.23 2017가단211322

배당이의

Text

1. It was prepared on July 12, 201 by the same court with respect to the auction case of real estate D with Busan District Court Dong Branch.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 19, 2013 with respect to the E-Ba 202 (hereinafter “instant loan”) in Busan-gun, Busan-gun, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 23, 2013 to the supplementary participant B, who was the Plaintiff’s supplementary participant B on November 8, 2013.

B. The Intervenor B, on the same day, set up a right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 84,50 million and paid part of the purchase price to the Plaintiff as a loan that was granted with the right to collateral security with the maximum debt amount of KRW 84,50,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 6, 2013.

C. On September 22, 2016, upon the application of the non-mortgage 1 Saemaul Savings Depository, the court issued a distribution schedule to the Defendant, who demanded the distribution of KRW 15 million to the small lessee on July 12, 2017, and the remaining amount of 73,732,112, each of which was distributed to the Defendant on the same day. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of evidence A1, 2, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant is the most lessee who conspired with the non-party F, and the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor B delegated the right of lease, etc. to the non-party F, while the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor B delegated the management to G. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is a true tenant who entered into a lease agreement with the F or G with respect to the loan of this case with the actual right of lease and paid the deposit and monthly rent.

3. Determination

A. Although the existence of any monetary relationship between the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, F, G, and H is not accurately known with respect to the instant loan, according to the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 1, 2, and 9 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Intervenor B to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on March 25, 2014.