beta
Text
1. As to the Cheongju District Court B real estate auction case B, the said court prepared on October 7, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 415,265,01 as a mortgagee on October 7, 2015, from the Cheongju District Court, Chungcheong Branch B real estate auction case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant auction procedure”) regarding C’s co-ownership share among the land located in Chungcheongnam-gun and its ground and the land located in the building and E (hereinafter referred to as “C”).
B. On November 18, 2014, the Defendant: (a) demanded the instant auction procedure to the effect that “C has a claim for wages of KRW 20,000,000 for total amount of KRW 5 months from May to September 2014; and accordingly, (b) on October 7, 2015, the Cheongju District Court drafted a distribution schedule that the Defendant was preferentially reimbursed to the Plaintiff, a mortgagee, for the three-month wage of KRW 12,00,000 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).
C. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, and raised an objection against the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is only F’s statement, which is the actual representative of C, from May 2014 to September 2014. According to the Defendant’s application for postponement submitted during the instant auction procedure, the Defendant appears to have received hospitalized treatment around the above time. There is no credibility, such as each of the materials submitted by the Defendant, and there is no inconsistency between each of the materials submitted by the Defendant, and even if the Defendant appears to be a partner with F, it is not recognized that the Defendant’s wage claim occurred, such as the Defendant appears to be a partner with F, and thus, the amount of the dividend against the Defendant should be deleted and added to the amount of the dividend against the Plaintiff.
(b) Each entry and pleading of Gap evidence 6, 9, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 4 through 6 (including each number), in the above facts of recognition.