(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.01.09 2015가단11531

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) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.01.09 2015가단11531

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 16, 1997, the Defendant entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant, the Defendant, and the maximum debt amount of 30,000,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with respect to the registration of establishment of a mortgage under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “registration of establishment of a mortgage”) as the registry office of the Jeonju District Court No. 18893, Dec. 17, 1997.

B. The Plaintiff had a claim for reimbursement against the deceased C, but the deceased on June 17, 1998, and the deceased on the deceased on the part of his heir, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and L. On January 9, 2015, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the heir as to the instant real estate.

C. On January 15, 2015, the procedure for the auction of real estate in the instant real estate was commenced as Jeonju District Court, Jeonju District Court-Eup Branch B, upon the Defendant’s application, and the Plaintiff made a demand for distribution (the amount of claim for distribution is KRW 89,708,928), and on August 27, 2015, the distribution schedule was prepared on August 27, 2015. The said distribution schedule states that the Defendant received KRW 25,850,00 and the Plaintiff received KRW 17,945,795, respectively.

The plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount of dividends of the defendant at the time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion argues that the amount of dividends against the Defendant should be deleted and distributed to the Plaintiff on the ground that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s claim”) or the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s claim”) was null and void as a false agreement, on the ground that there was no existence of the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s claim”), or on the ground that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s claim”).

B. Determination 1-related legal principles.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.02.06 2016가단4431

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2020.12.22 2020가단12248

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2018.10.16 2017가단11504

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2014.12.09 2014가단3861

-전주지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가단24145