logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.08.28 2014가단51179
배당이의
Text

1. It was drawn up by the above court on January 27, 2014 with respect to the auction of real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang-gu District Court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C obtained a loan from one bank on June 22, 2006, and it created a collateral security right of KRW 520 million with respect to the D Apartment 103, 401 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “I bank”), one bank (hereinafter “the instant apartment”).

B. Since C was unable to repay the above collateral security obligation, one bank applied for the auction of real estate auction to this court B, and reported the amount of credit amount of KRW 454,066,302 (principal KRW 380,000,000, interest KRW 740,066,302).

The Plaintiff acquired the right to collateral security from the Han Bank.

C. On May 16, 2013, the Defendant, from August 6, 2008, leased one room among the apartment complexes of this case to KRW 30 million from the said auction procedure, filed a report on the right and demand for distribution.

On January 27, 2014, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the amount to be actually distributed among the sales proceeds of the apartment of this case shall be KRW 16,00,000,000 and KRW 245,366,677 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). The Plaintiff appeared on the distribution date and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant on January 29, 2014.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry of Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In light of the following circumstances, the defendant can sufficiently confirm the plaintiff's assertion that he/she is the largest lessee, not the small lessee who is the highest priority holder in the Housing Lease Protection Act, in light of the respective descriptions and the whole purport of arguments as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10 (including partial numbers):

(1) Around July 4, 2008, the Defendant alleged that C leased one room among the apartment buildings of this case from C with a deposit of KRW 30 million, and C.

arrow