beta
Text
1. The document prepared on February 27, 2018 by this Court concerning the application case for a voluntary auction of real estate C with the Gwangju District Court Netcheon-gu District Court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At the time of leisure owned D, G, 5 Dong 120 (hereinafter “instant apartment”), the auction procedure of real estate was initiated by Gwangju District Court Ycheon Branch C with respect to the instant apartment.
B. On February 27, 2018, when distributing the amount of KRW 80,941,182 to be actually distributed, this court set up a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 15,660,00 to the Defendant, who is a lessee of small claims, in the second order, KRW 164,660, and KRW 58,80,000, and KRW 58,800 to the National Bank, which is a mortgagee, in the third order, to the Plaintiff, who is a mortgagee, the mortgagee, in the fourth order. (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is the most tenant, and the tenant is not a legitimate tenant to receive dividends in the distribution procedure of this case. The defendant asserts that he is a legitimate tenant who actually resided in the apartment of this case after concluding a lease contract with D and making a move-in report.
B. According to the evidence Nos. 2-2 and Nos. 1-2 and 1-2, the Defendant and D may recognize the fact that the Defendant and D completed the move-in report of the instant apartment on December 17, 2014 with respect to the instant apartment, without any rent of KRW 25,00,000, and from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2016, the lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) was made from December 31, 2014 to December 31, 2016, and the Defendant obtained a fixed date on December 18, 2014.
However, in full view of the following circumstances, the defendant is not the genuine tenant, considering the evidence Nos. 6 and No. 2, and the whole purport of the pleadings.
Therefore, it is unlawful that the court of execution distributes the dividends to the defendant under the premise that the defendant is a genuine tenant.