beta
Text
1. Daejeon District Court C, D, and E (Dual) drafted on August 27, 2015 with respect to the auction of real estate.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. With respect to the Daejeon Sung-gu Daejeon District Court F 476.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) and the accommodation facilities and detached houses (hereinafter “instant building”) of the ground reinforced concrete structure, which was owned by the Plaintiff, a decision to voluntarily commence the auction (Seoul District Court) on January 12, 2015, upon the application of G and H, and the National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives (hereinafter “NF”) (hereinafter “NF”) (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was conducted on April 29, 2015, upon the application of the mortgagee G and H, and the said decision to voluntarily commence the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).
B. On June 15, 2015, the instant site and building were sold to the Defendant in KRW 2,890,000 on the date of sale, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s name was completed on July 23, 2015.
C. During the instant auction procedure on August 27, 2015, NFC’s transferee, a mortgagee, 2,041,263,026 won, 2,026 won, 2,00 won, 272,934,243 won, 272,93 won, 272,93,243 won, 3rd priority, for the Defendant, a person holding the right to lease the instant building, 161,789,471 won, 475 won, and 124,250,473 won, to the Defendant, a person holding the right to lease the instant building, who is the debtor and owner of the instant building, was set up in the order of priority.
The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividend, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on September 2, 2015.
[Evidence Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 8 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. Judgment on the parties' arguments
A. Considering the facts of recognition as Gap, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9 through 13, and the partial entry of Eul evidence No. 2, and the witness I and J's testimony and arguments, the following facts are recognized differently: