배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On October 28, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the court B regarding the above apartment on October 28, 2013, as a person who completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring apartment in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant apartment”) No. 507 of the 5th, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
B. On April 14, 201, between E and E, the former owner, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with KRW 15,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000 with respect to the instant apartment, and made a move-in report on November 28, 201. On October 7, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C to change the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, and obtained a fixed date on October 24, 2013.
C. In the aforementioned voluntary auction case, this court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of KRW 65,447,343 to the Defendant of the lessee of small claims in the first order among the amount of KRW 85,447,343, which is the date of distribution, to be distributed actually on May 14, 2014, respectively, to the Defendant of the mortgagee of small claims in the second order.
The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 20, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap1 to 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. A lease agreement concluded on October 7, 2013 between the Defendant and C with the purport of increasing the Plaintiff’s claimed lease deposit from KRW 15,000,000 to KRW 25,000 constitutes the most advanced payment for the Plaintiff’s claim for a voluntary auction.
B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff did not assert or prove the facts constituting the grounds for objection against distribution, and thus, the obligee who filed an objection against distribution by asserting that the other party’s claim is disguised, bears the burden of proof as to such claim.
(Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178 delivered on November 14, 1997). It is recognized as comprehensively taking account of each of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 15 and 6, and No. 3 and all of the arguments.