(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가단5376

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.05.30 2018가단5376

배당이의

Text

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on March 23, 2018 by the above court with respect to the Seoul Northern District Court C real estate auction case.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of “Seoul Northern-gu D and E” (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On March 23, 2018, in Seoul Northern District Court C real estate auction, the distribution schedule was formulated that KRW 26,444,712 was paid to the Defendant each to the Plaintiff, on the premise that the Defendant had a claim to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million.

(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). C.

The plaintiff appeared on the date of the above distribution and raised an objection against the whole amount distributed by the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 8, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On July 18, 2008, the Defendant asserted that the instant real estate was leased at KRW 30 million from Nonparty F, the former owner of the instant real estate, but the deposit was increased to KRW 50 million on January 2, 2010, while the Plaintiff asserted that the said lease agreement between the Defendant and F constitutes a false representation, and thus, the said lease agreement becomes null and void.

3. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that a lease agreement of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) between the Defendant and Nonparty F was null and void as a false declaration of agreement.

Witness

According to F’s testimony, the above F, which leased the instant real estate to the Defendant, is recognized as having been the spouse of the Defendant’s her mother, and there is a doubtful circumstance as to whether the deposit for lease was actually made between the Defendant and F.

B. According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the remainder of the lease deposit is KRW 40 million on the lease contract and receipt of this case. It is not consistent with the defendant's assertion that the deposit has increased from KRW 30 million to KRW 50 million.

C. According to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, it is recognized that the sum of the money that the defendant remitted to F on July 2008 is eight million won.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.06.03 2015가단117957

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.05.10 2016가합1755

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.20 2017가단106876

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.03.25 2014가단10795

-대구지방법원김천지원 2017.11.29 2016가단5470