logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.19 2015나8466
배당이의
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that ① as the most lessee who did not actually rent the instant house or abused the top priority repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act, the instant contract is null and void as a conspiracy false representation, or ② the Defendant’s conclusion of the instant lease agreement with C, which had already been in excess of the obligation, constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to the obligee, and thus, the distribution schedule should be revised by allocating the dividend amount of KRW 22 million to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances, the defendant prepared a lease agreement on the real estate of this case, i.e., the agreed lease deposit amounting to KRW 25 million, the defendant was necessary to rent the real estate of this case in the vicinity for children H attending G elementary schools, and the fact that the plaintiff actually completed a move-in report and is anticipated to have resided in the real estate of this case, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant is the most lessee, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

B. The first priority repayment right of small-sum deposit under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, which is established as a fraudulent act, grants a kind of statutory security right that can be paid in preference to claims secured by mortgages, taxes, etc. on leased housing. Therefore, the debtor's act of setting the right of lease under the above Article regarding the only house owned by the debtor in excess of the debt.

arrow