logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.03.09 2017가합102470
배당이의
Text

1. It was drawn up by the above court on July 21, 2017 with respect to the auction case of real estate deposit C with the Incheon District Court Busan District Court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 24, 2016, according to the application for a voluntary auction of real estate by the D Cooperatives, the decision of voluntary auction was rendered on August 24, 2016 with respect to the land owned by the Plaintiff, Kimpo-si E, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

(hereinafter “instant auction procedure”). B.

In the instant auction procedure, the amount of KRW 1,165,092,244 to be distributed actually on July 21, 2017; KRW 189,530; KRW 189,530; KRW 592,504,458 (mortgage 650,000,000 with maximum amount of claims); KRW 310,478,310 (mortgage 370,000 with maximum amount of claims); and the mortgagee of the instant right to collateral security (mortgage 370,000 with maximum amount of claims); and

2.(b)

4) The distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) stating that the Defendant, who is the Defendant, distributes the amount of KRW 261,656,533 in the second order of priority, including the distribution of the amount of KRW 261,65,533.

(c) On July 21, 2017, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, and raised an objection to the entire amount of the instant dividend amount against the Defendant among the instant dividend table, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 25, 201. [Grounds for Recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, and the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) are included.

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant regarding the instant land; however, there was no real loan from the Defendant, and the instant mortgage is null and void. The Plaintiff’s assertion is not the money borrowed by the Plaintiff on September 10 through September 19, 2012, but the amount of KRW 300 million transferred from the Defendant on September 10 through September 19, 2012, to the Plaintiff temporarily transferred the Fri land under a third party’s name. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff transferred the said KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff. At the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff is a seller of the said Fri land (hereinafter “G”).

arrow