가장임차인을 배당절차에서 제외한 배당표는 적법함.[국승]
The distribution schedule except for the most lessee in the distribution procedure is legitimate.
Although the plaintiff asserts that he has preferential right to payment as a small lessee under the law of the state of appointment, considering that the relationship between the plaintiff and the debtor, the husband's confirmation that the plaintiff's husband was a free residence, and the fact that the deposit was paid, the plaintiff cannot be viewed as a legitimate small lessee
Articles 151 [Objection against Distribution Schedule] and 154 [Lawsuit of Demurrer against Distribution] of the Civil Execution Act
Gwangju District Court-2015-Ban-25636
OraA
Korea
November 27, 2015
December 11, 2015
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Cheong-gu Office
Gwangju District Court 2013Taju 31449 decided June 4, 2015
Of the distribution schedule prepared, dividends to the plaintiff 19,000,000 won and dividends to the defendant
61,272,367 won shall be corrected to 42,272,367 won.
1. Basic facts
(a) A cement brick structure with the area of 254-OO, 153 square meters and above ground-ground cement structure owned by the KimB;
On December 6, 2013, Gwangju District Court 2010 OOOO on December 6, 2013, the compulsory auction procedure for real estate was commenced as a creditor with respect to the two housing units in the slive roof (hereinafter referred to as the "each real estate of this case", and only the housing units of this case are referred to as the "building of this case").
B. On June 4, 2015, the execution court shall sell each real estate of this case in the above compulsory auction procedure.
In distributing the amount after deducting the cost of execution, 61,272,367 won shall be distributed to the defendant,
Contents that the Plaintiff, as the lessee for the building, did not pay dividends at all to the Plaintiff.
The distribution schedule was drawn up.
C. As to the amount of KRW 50,000,000 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution.
The objection was raised.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 7
2. The plaintiff's assertion and its determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion
between KimB on November 18, 1987 and KimB on the first floor of the building of this case
The building of this case at issue around March 191, 191, after entering into a lease contract with KRW 30 million and residing therein.
A total of KRW 50 million was paid by providing additional payment of KRW 20 million to the 2nd floor repair cost.
on January 6, 2011, in the form of a lease contract with a deposit of KRW 50 million from the lease deposit.
As a genuine tenant, the Plaintiff is the first priority repayment amounting to KRW 19 million under the Housing Lease Protection Act.
be distributed in preference to the defendant.
B. Determination
According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 7, the plaintiff's owner of the building of this case on November 18, 1987
The fact that the Plaintiff made a move-in report on possession, as of November 20, 208, that the Plaintiff leased the first floor of the building of this case to KRW 30 million as of November 20, 2008, and that as of January 6, 201, the lease contract was concluded to lease the first floor of the building of this case to KRW 50 million as of January 6, 201, but is recognized as follows, the Plaintiff and KimB, the owner of the building of this case, are women, in other words, as of November 30, 201, that the Plaintiff’s husband of this case, at the time of receiving the loan from theCC Credit Cooperative, were written with a written confirmation of the lease contract to reside free of charge in the building of this case, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to the lessee of the building of this case under the pretext of the lease deposit, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to the Plaintiff before 2000,000.1.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
(c)