배당이의
The distribution schedule prepared by the above court on May 12, 2015 with respect to the case of the auction of the real estate B by Busan District Court Branch B.
Facts of recognition
With respect to F Nos. 403, 403, 1309, 403 (hereinafter “instant real property”), the auction procedure was commenced on September 24, 2014 at the request of Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the mortgagee, which was the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant real property”).
(2) On November 23, 2010, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff leased one column from the present room (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”) of the instant real estate from the Plaintiff to KRW 25,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant filed a claim for distribution of the leased object of this case (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).
On May 12, 2015, the said auction court: (a) recognized the Defendant as a lessee of small claims having the highest priority repayment right on the date of distribution, and distributed KRW 22,00,000 to the Defendant; and (b) drafted a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 32,658,270 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).
On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 19, 2015, against the total amount of dividends against the Defendant on the date of distribution.
On November 24, 2010, the Defendant paid KRW 48,530,00 to C.
The Defendant, around January 15, 2013, prepared the date of preparation of the instant lease agreement from November 23, 2010 and obtained a fixed date on the same day, and completed the move-in report on the instant real estate on January 16, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the judgment as to the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9, and the main claim of the entire pleadings is merely a case where the date of preparation is calculated retroactively without paying a lease deposit, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion constitutes a case where the Plaintiff pretended false indication or lessee
The Defendant began to work for the company run by C from around 2010, and leased the leased object of this case from C while the distance from work is far from C, and remitted KRW 28,530,000 on the following day to C, but excluded the lease deposit.