(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.01.17 2016가단30569

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) 대전지방법원 2019.01.17 2016가단30569

배당이의

Text

1. With respect to the Daejeon District Court C real estate compulsory auction cases, the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 13, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 11, 1997, F made registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) of KRW 100 million with respect to each real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant and the designated parties on the attached list.

B. At the auction procedure of G real estate G District Court on July 26, 2002, the Defendant received dividends of KRW 14,398,692, respectively, for the Defendant and the appointed parties D, and KRW 12,341,737, respectively, for the appointed parties E, for the appropriation of the leased principal claimed as the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security.

(3) On January 10, 2003, F made and sent to the Defendant and the appointed parties a letter of commitment as follows (hereinafter “instant letter of commitment”). The Defendant and the appointed parties, as the holder of the instant collateral security right, agreed to pay interest of 12% per annum to KRW 58,88 million ( KRW 20,60,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,00).

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who was present on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, raised an objection to the distribution against the Defendant and the designated parties, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on October 14, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the secured claim of the instant right to collateral security is false, and even if it is not so, the extinctive prescription has expired, so the distribution schedule should be corrected by eliminating the amount of distribution to the Defendant and the designated parties and distributing it to the Plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff is the defendant.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.01.17 2016가단31012

-대전지방법원 2016.07.07 2015가단37549

-대전지방법원 2017.01.13 2016나106917

-인천지방법원 2015.01.23 2013가단101844

-서울지법 북부지원 1995. 7. 14. 선고 95가합2979 판결 : 확정