beta
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2016.04.06 2015가단10231

배당이의

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 4, 2014, E completed the registration of initial ownership relating to the instant apartment in its name, and the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure of real estate regarding the instant apartment under the Gwangju District Court Decision 2014Kahap98 with respect to the claim for damages against E (the claimed amount of KRW 240,000,000) as the preserved right (the claimed amount of KRW 240,000), and the said court decided to accept the Plaintiff’s application for provisional seizure on May 16, 2014.

B. On September 24, 2014, the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement with E and the deposit KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent KRW 200,000, and the period from September 28, 2014 to September 30, 2016, respectively. On the same day, the Defendant paid KRW 10,000,000 to E, and completed the move-in report and received a fixed date.

C. On October 2014, F, another creditor of E, filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant real estate with respect to the instant real estate, and on October 6, 2014, the entry registration of the decision to commence voluntary auction was completed, and on October 15, 2015, the instant distribution schedule was formulated with respect to distributing KRW 10,000 to the Defendant.

On October 15, 2015, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant voluntary auction case, and stated that he/she has an objection to the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant. On October 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 7 through 9, Eul's 2 through 4, 5-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. As to the claim for objection to a distribution, a selective claim

A. In light of the market price (139,000,000 won) of the apartment of this case, the amount of the deposit and rent stipulated in the instant lease agreement asserted by the Plaintiff is lower than without delay. In addition, even if the mortgage or provisional seizure was established on the apartment of this case at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant was not able to commence the auction procedure of this case and without going through a licensed real estate agent 12 days prior to the commencement of the auction procedure of this case.