공매대금 배분처분취소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit, including the part resulting from the supplementary participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. On October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order against C seeking the payment of the acquisition amount under the Seoul Central District Court 2015 tea26024. On November 9, 2015, the said court ordered C to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 14,124,239 and KRW 3,061,381 at a rate of 17% per annum from August 13, 2015 to the date of full payment, and the said payment order became final and conclusive on March 26, 2016.
B. On April 2, 2003, the Intervenor completed the registration of the establishment of a collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) by the Intervenor as to the instant real estate owned by C, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 12 million, C, and the Intervenor’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”).
C. 1) On February 9, 2017, as C did not pay local taxes, the Jinan Military Administration attached the instant real estate owned by C, and subsequently ordered the Defendant to execute a public auction procedure on the instant real estate. 2) The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to distribute the proceeds of sale by reporting the claim on February 9, 2017.
3) The Defendant prepared a distribution statement of KRW 4,611,718 out of KRW 18,456,030, which remains after deducting KRW 1,031,370 from the amount of KRW 19,487,40 to be distributed on May 17, 2017 (hereinafter “instant disposition”) with the content that KRW 4,81,781,781, which remains after deducting KRW 18,456,00 from the amount of KRW 19,487,40, and that KRW 4,819,889, and KRW 607,642, which is distributed to the Jan-gun Military Administration (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
4) The Plaintiff raised an objection to the distribution statement against the Intervenor on the ground that the secured obligation of the instant right to collateral security has ceased to exist due to the expiration of extinctive prescription.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful
A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the secured obligation of the instant mortgage at the time of the instant disposition is complete by extinctive prescription.