logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.07.21 2014가단73144
배당이의
Text

1. It was concluded on July 13, 2013 with respect to subparagraph 402 of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Building C, which was between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and B.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, on September 17, 2010, lent KRW 115 million to B on the security, completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage amounting to KRW 150 million with respect to the Gyeyang-gu Incheon Building C, the ownership of which was acquired by B on the same day (hereinafter “instant house”).

B. On September 13, 2013, according to the Defendant’s request for auction to enforce the right to collateral security, an auction procedure was initiated regarding the instant housing.

(In Mancheon District Court D). (c)

The Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 22 million out of the amount of dividends to the Defendant, when he/she was excluded from dividends on October 28, 2014, which was declared bankrupt on May 13, 2014 and was granted immunity on the 26th of the same month after the discontinuation of the bankruptcy on December 23, 2014 (the Incheon District Court Decision 201Hacheon-do 2013Hau5146, 2013, 5142), which was indicated as the lease deposit amount from August 5, 2013 to August 4, 2015 (the grounds for recognition), and without dispute, and the purport of items A, 11 through 13, 14, 17, and 8-14, 17, and 26th of the same month.

2. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff is entitled to preferential dividends in preference to the Defendant as a small lessee who had resided in the lease deposit after paying the lease deposit under the lease agreement concluded on July 13, 2013 with B (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant asserts that even if the Plaintiff was a genuine lessee, the instant lease agreement should be revoked as a fraudulent act, and thus, should be excluded from dividends.

3. Determination

A. In full view of whether a fraudulent act constitutes Gap’s fraudulent act, Gap’s evidence Nos. 7, 11, 12-1-1, and fact-finding conducted by the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport as a whole, the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: ① the Plaintiff obtained the fixed date in the instant lease agreement on August 7, 2013, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was incorporated into mountain and loan company

arrow