배당이의
1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
2. As to the real estate stated in the separate sheet between the Defendant and B, June 2013.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 21, 2008, between B and B, the Plaintiff set up a collateral on the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by B (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the content of KRW 120,000 with respect to the obligor D and the maximum debt amount of KRW 120,00,000. On November 9, 2011, E acquired the aforementioned D’s contract overlappingly, and the Plaintiff and B entered into a joint and several guarantee agreement with the content of the joint and several guarantee agreement with the content of the obligation borne by E to the Plaintiff.
B. On June 18, 2009, the Defendant entered into a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the Defendant on June 17, 2013, setting the deposit deposit amounting to KRW 12,00,000, and KRW 400,000,00 for the instant apartment among the instant apartment units, among the real estate owned by the Defendant in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
The defendant completed the resident registration for the composition of a household on the same day and received the fixed date, and paid deposit to B, and paid 400,000 won per month for rent.
C. On May 30, 2014, this Court established a distribution schedule with the content that: (a) the Defendant reported as a small lessee on May 30, 2014 to the instant apartment; (b) KRW 12,680,000; (c) the head of the Yangju City, the holder of the right to deliver the pertinent apartment; (d) KRW 76,084,778; and (e) the Plaintiff, the holder of the first collective security interest, who was the second collective security interest, distributed the amount of KRW 50,096,279 (the reported amount of claim KRW 120,00,000) to the Korea Bank, the first collective security interest.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, 10, 11, 16, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Although the Plaintiff asserts that the instant lease agreement becomes invalid as a false declaration of agreement, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the instant lease agreement was a false declaration of agreement, and as seen earlier, the Defendant is registered as a resident in the instant apartment.