beta
Text
1. The Seoul Northern District Court C real estate compulsory auction case is the dividend table prepared on December 30, 2013 by the above court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D and E claiming for the sales price of airline tickets KRW 635,010,099 and delay damages, and won a favorable judgment (Seoul Northern District Court 201Gahap1181, 201). At the request of the Plaintiff who made the said judgment as an executive title, the procedure for compulsory auction for real estate auction was initiated to the Seoul Northern District Court C on December 20, 2012.
B. During the above compulsory auction procedure, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 287,731,153 to the Defendant, who is the person having the right to demand distribution, to the Defendant, who is the person having the right to demand distribution, the amount of KRW 76,80,00,00 to the limited company specializing in securitization, which is the transferee of the Han Bank, the senior mortgagee, and KRW 37,02,473 to the Han Bank, the junior mortgagee, the junior mortgagee, and KRW 18,045,69, KRW 71,904,345, and KRW 83,958,636 to the Plaintiff, the applicant creditor.
C. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the total amount of the Defendants’ dividends.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. Although the Plaintiff Defendants did not have the claims against E, the instant distribution schedule should be corrected by deeming that they received each payment order for E and received a demand for distribution.
B. Defendant A (a) lent KRW 55 million to each type E engaged in a travel business on December 30, 2009 and received interest from February 4, 2010 to June 17, 201, and thus is not a false bond.
C. Around May 8, 1996, around the 15th of the same month, Defendant B lent a total of KRW 77 million to E, and the remainder of KRW 70,000,000,000 per annum, which received partial reimbursement, received KRW 6.6% interest per annum on the remainder of KRW 70,000 per annum, and around the end of 207, KRW 30,000 as the purchase fund of the instant building.