beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.12 2017나55275

배당이의

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Busan District Court A real estate rental auction case.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 2010 with respect to the real estate Nos. 202 of Busan Shipping Daegu and the second floor (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on April 20, 2010 with respect to C (1/3 shares), D (1/3 shares), and E (1/3 shares) as co-owners.

(hereinafter referred to as “C share”, “D share”, and “E share” when referring to C, D, and E share among the instant real estate

The Defendant leased C with respect to the instant real property of KRW 395,00,000, the amount of KRW 36951 (the maximum debt amount of KRW 474,00,000) and completed the registration of establishment of a collateral security (the collateral security (the collateral security (the collateral security) based on the above registration) with the Busan District Court’s 36951, and leased KRW 395,000 to D, the amount of KRW 395,00,000 for the establishment of a collateral security (the maximum debt amount of KRW 474,00,000,000 for the establishment of a collateral security (the collateral security based on the above registration) under the control of Busan District Court’s 36953 to E, while lending the amount of KRW 395,00,000 for the establishment of a collateral security (the collateral security (the collateral security under the above registration) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 474,000,00).

After that, on May 24, 2010, the registration of correction was completed in the order of priority of the registration of the establishment of the three neighboring mortgage on the ground of the error in the application.

C. On February 29, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for asset sales with the Defendant and the same year.

3.23.C and E’s assignment of claims and the first and third collateral mortgages and registration of the transfer of these securitization assets to the Financial Supervisory Service.

In around 2014, each public auction procedure (hereinafter “instant public auction procedure”) began with respect to C and E’s share, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant demanded distribution as shown below.

It seems that it did not demand the Plaintiff to pay KRW 0 of 751,275,846 Won 703,672,010 to the public auction shares in the public auction E with respect to the Plaintiff’s share in the public auction.

575,882,215 Defendant D’s Claim 396,831,664 Won 396,831,664 won

E. In the above public auction procedure.