beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.05.15 2014가단43440

배당이의의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the preliminary claim are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In order to secure a loan claim against C, on November 4, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the establishment registration of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “right to collateral security”) of KRW 148,850,000 with respect to the instant real estate owned by C.

Since then, as C did not pay interest on the above loan, the Plaintiff was voluntarily decided to commence the auction on May 24, 2013 based on the instant right to collateral security.

B. In the above auction procedure, on June 24, 2014, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute each of the dividends of KRW 22,00,000, and KRW 22,000,00 to the Defendant who demanded a distribution as a lessee of small claims, the date of distribution, and KRW 89,35,096 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff appeared on the said distribution date and stated an objection against the said dividends. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on June 27, 2014, which was within one week thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On the grounds of the claim, the Defendant is the most lessee who is unable to be protected pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act that entered into a lease agreement with respect to the instant real estate in order to receive the dividend of the small rent deposit, and thus, the instant distribution schedule, which recognized the Defendant as a small lessee and distributed KRW 22,00,000, should be revised as the primary purport of the claim.

Preliminaryly, C entered into the instant lease agreement with respect to the instant real estate in excess of the debt, which constitutes a fraudulent act, should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and the said distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the preliminary claim in the manner of restitution.

B. We examine the judgment of the primary cause of the claim, as a whole the entries and arguments of Gap 5, Eul 1 to 8.