배당이의의 소
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff filed for a compulsory auction on the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F Building G (hereinafter “instant house”) owned by E with the title of the final judgment on the case No. 2015Da2119 Decided June 15, 2016, the Suwon District Court Sung-nam Branch of Suwon District Court rendered a final judgment on E as the title of execution. The Plaintiff received a decision to commence the auction as Seoul Central District Court D on September 5, 2016.
B. Upon the progress of the auction, the Seoul Central District Court: (a) distributed KRW 18,75,730,730, the remainder of KRW 188,75,730, after each of the following dividends was paid to the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and H Co., Ltd., which is the seizure right holder; (b) KRW 4,698,060, KRW 538,000, KRW 136,081,728, among KRW 330,07,000 and the amount to be actually distributed, which is 330,073,518.
In the fourth order, 20,00,000 won, 110,000,000 won, 12,340,70 won, 11,342 won, 11,07,542 won, 31,965,232 won, 15,616 won, and 15,616 won, are distributed to Defendant C, the lessee of the fixed date, who is the lessee of the fixed date, to Defendant C, who is the lessee of the fixed date, in the fourth order.
C. On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised each objection to KRW 92,828,144 out of the total amount of dividends of Defendant B and the amount of dividends of Defendant C, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 22, 2017.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) Defendant C is the most lessee of the instant house, and Defendant C is also the former lessee of the instant house from Defendant C, and the latter is merely the best difference, and thus, dividends to the Defendants are unreasonable. Since Defendant E and Defendant C are in a relationship between E and E, as the owner of the instant house, and the details of the payment of the lease deposit and the timing of resident registration transfer, etc. are contrary to the empirical rule, Defendant C cannot be deemed as a person who has leased the instant house as a genuine lessee. 2) Distribution court is the