배당이의
1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On March 19, 2012, C completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale and purchase on February 28, 2012 with respect to the first floor D No. 101 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, C borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff as collateral, C completed the registration of creation of a collateral (hereinafter “instant collateral”) with respect to the instant real estate amount of KRW 65 million with respect to the Plaintiff.
B. Since then, upon suspending the payment of interest on the above loan, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction with the Incheon District Court B regarding the instant real estate, and the said court commenced the auction procedure for real estate rent (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) on April 4, 2014 upon the said application.
C. 1) In the instant auction procedure, the Defendant asserted that himself is a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act at the court of execution, and filed a report on his right and demand for distribution. The court of execution opened a date of distribution on October 31, 2014 and held it on the date of distribution to the Defendant who made a demand for distribution as a small lessee, the court of execution shall order 20,000 won in the first order, and a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 30,691,281 in the order of priority to the Plaintiff who is a mortgagee as a applicant creditor (hereinafter “instant
2) On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant on the aforementioned date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on November 6, 2014, within one week thereafter.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, 5 through 7, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties does not intend to use and benefit from the real estate of this case, but is merely the most lessee who entered into a lease agreement with E on the real estate of this case in the form of a smallest lessee who is a priority repayment.
Therefore, the above dividends against the defendant are illegal, and thus, this case.