logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.10.28 2020가단8349
배당이의
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 115,00,000 to F (hereinafter “instant loan”) and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 138,00,000 with respect to H located in Michuhol-gu Incheon in (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by F on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). B.

On February 18, 2019, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) that leases the instant real estate as the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000 (in February 24, 2019), monthly rent of KRW 450,000, and the lease term of KRW 24 months from February 24, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

C. F delayed repayment of the instant loan obligation, the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate on the instant real estate (Sacheon District Court E; hereinafter “instant auction”), and the said court rendered a voluntary decision to commence the auction on June 7, 2019.

In the auction procedure of this case, on April 14, 2020, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the following contents (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) on the premise that the defendant is the top priority repayment right holder under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

(2) The plaintiff 169,720 won 169,720 won and 450,090 won and 94,966,859 won and 450 won and 94,90 won and 94,96,000 won and 169

E. On April 14, 2020, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of the Defendant’s dividends, and filed the instant lawsuit on the 21st of the same month.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserted that the auction will soon commence beyond the value of the real estate, but he could have abused his right to preferential reimbursement under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

arrow