임대차보증금
All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
In fact, the grounds for appeal by the defendants are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the documents were submitted to the first instance court and the first instance court, it is recognized that the facts and judgments in the first instance court are legitimate except as follows.
Therefore, the reason why the trial of the court of first instance is based on the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following reasons. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
(hereinafter the meaning of terms used in this section is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance). 2. Sheet part of the judgment of the court of first instance.
this subsection shall be filled by the following:
“C. The auction procedure for the instant multi-family house was initiated with Ulsan District Court I, and the appraised value in the instant case was KRW 728,938,40. The appraised value was KRW 379,823,373 (= interest 36,964 on the sale price of KRW 385,00,00,000 - Execution cost KRW 5,213,591) - The following dividends were not paid to the Plaintiff. The dividends distribution ratio of KRW 1 N lessee (Small-sum amount) 19,00,000, KRW 19,000,000, KRW 10019,000, KRW 1000,000 and KRW 379,000 on the date of distribution of the said auction case. From KRW 379,823,00,000 on June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff was not paid to the Plaintiff.
In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the aforementioned facts, each of the evidence mentioned above, and the overall purport of Gap evidence and evidence set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the following circumstances, i.e., the right to collateral security was established on the apartment house and its site at the time of the instant lease agreement, i.e., the maximum debt amount of which was 416,00,000, and ii).