(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.06.27 2017가단43564

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) 인천지방법원 2018.06.27 2017가단43564

배당이의

Text

1. All of the lawsuits of this case against the defendant Nam Daegu Tax Office and the director of Seocheon Tax Office shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C to rent KRW 10,000,000 for lease deposit, KRW 24 months for lease period, and KRW 1,100,00 for rent month.

B. A voluntary auction procedure was conducted against the store of this case to the Incheon District Court B, and the Plaintiff demanded the distribution as a lessee.

On December 21, 2017, on the date of distribution, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule of KRW 172,214,571 among the proceeds from the sale of the store in this case on December 21, 2017, to the Daegu Vice-Governor of the National Health Insurance Corporation, who is the holder of the second priority to deliver (the pertinent tax) in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, which is the holder of the first priority to deliver (the pertinent tax), KRW 2,284,580, KRW 1,261, KRW 204, KRW 501, KRW 54,560, KRW 560, KRW 723,951 and KRW 46,172, and KRW 161,76,651, KRW 1751, and KRW 1224,955, and KRW 165,000 to the National Bank of Korea, the holder of the second priority to distribute dividends (hereinafter referred to as “the distribution schedule”).

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against part of the dividend amount to the Defendants. On December 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is the tenant of the store in this case, and as the tenant of the commercial building lease protection law, the plaintiff is the tenant of the store in this case, and thus, the plaintiff's priority should be paid for KRW 10,000,000.

Nevertheless, inasmuch as the distribution schedule of this case did not contain a dividend to the plaintiff, the correction of the distribution schedule, such as the amount claimed, is sought.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the legitimacy of the action against the defendant Nam Daegu Tax Office and the director of Seocheon Tax Office.

참조조문

-상가건물 임대차보호법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018. 06. 27. 선고 2017가단43564 판결

-의정부지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단12953

-수원지방법원 2020.05.15 2019가단567436

-인천지방법원 2019.07.03 2019가단202145

-인천지방법원 2021.03.18 2020가단232319