Appropriateness of a claim of demurrer against distribution on the ground that seizure on a motor vehicle is null and void

The Plaintiff, who is a facility leasing business entity, is the owner of the right to collateral security of the instant automobile, and the seizure of the instant automobile is null and void as it is based on the claim against the delinquent taxpayer, who is a third party, and is not subject to seizure. The distribution schedule of this case must be revised.

Article 33 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act

2017 grouped 51305 Demurrer against distribution

*****

Republic of Korea 2 others

1.** district court 2016Ma50*** Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on April 12, 2017, the amount of dividends of Defendant DD in relation to the case of automobile rental auction KRW 580,020, and dividends of KRW 3,489,159, and dividends of KRW 3,523,319, and KRW 7,99,639 against the defendant ECE Corporation, respectively, KRW 8,013,931 won against the plaintiff, and KRW 23,606,068.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Agreement on facility leasing between the Plaintiff and RedA and creation of a collateral security

(1) On August 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a facility lease contract with the HongA with respect to the 28 U.S. 3** Bealym-cracked vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “instant vehicle”). The main contents are as stated in the attached Form 2.

As to the instant motor vehicle, the new registration was completed in the name of HongA on August 19, 2013, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of the instant motor vehicle at KRW 45,00,000 on the same day.

(b) Progress of the auction procedure;

(1) On March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for the auction of automobile on the instant automobile as a mortgagee with the district court ** District Court 2016 other 50***.

The Defendants requested the seizure authority for each of the instant vehicles to deliver each of the claims in arrears, such as tax claims and health insurance.

Of the amount to be actually distributed on April 12, 2017, the distribution court of 25,171,048 won, Defendant DD’s KRW 580,080, and Defendant EEEA’s KRW 3,489,159, and Defendant Korea’s 3,523,319 won and 7,99,639 won (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). The Plaintiff, a mortgagee, filed an objection to the total amount of the said dividends (including the relevant tax amount) against the Defendants on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 14, 2014.

[인정근거 : 다툼 없는 사실, 갑 제1˜5호증의 각 기재, 변론 전체의 취지]

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendants' assertion

A person who has standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be limited to a creditor or debtor who has appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection under a substantive law as to the distribution schedule, and even in cases where the goods owned by a third party are sold as an object of compulsory execution due to mistake as owned by the debtor, such third party does not constitute an interested party in the auction procedure, and thus there is no standing to sue to file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution. The plaintiff raised an objection against

B. Determination

As seen earlier, the execution creditor who applied for voluntary auction as a mortgagee for the instant automobile constitutes an interested party in the voluntary auction case concerning the instant automobile, and the said main safety defense by the Defendants is without merit on a different premise.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant automobile is owned by the Plaintiff, regardless of its ownership, and the Defendants’ respective seizure and delivery claims against the Plaintiff are null and void. Thus, the instant dividend table should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim, the mortgagee of the instant vehicle, is without merit, since the Defendants’ claims for arrears, such as tax claims and health insurance, against RedA, priority over the Plaintiff’s right to collateral security in the distribution order.

B. Determination

(1) The key issue in the merits is whether each of the defendants' claims for seizure and delivery are invalid, and it depends on whether the pertinent automobile can be seen as owned by the plaintiff, regardless of the name of the instant automobile in the HongA.

[Attachment] The content of the instant facility leasing agreement (Article 2 subparag. 10 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 3(2) of the Terms and Conditions of this case) and the HongA agreement between the Plaintiff and the HongA to vest the ownership of the instant vehicle. However, the ownership of the instant vehicle has become HongA, as seen earlier, the fact that the ownership of the instant vehicle became HongA. Furthermore, in principle, the change of ownership of the instant vehicle has its effect of registration (Articles 6 and 8(1) of the Motor Vehicle Management Act). Accordingly, the instant motor vehicle is considered to be externally owned by the

Article 33(1) of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act provides that the content of the instant facility leasing agreement and the provisions of the Automobile Management Act shall be interpreted as a provision to externally recognize the Plaintiff’s ownership of the instant automobile regardless of the title of ownership in the case of facility leasing by recognizing an exception to the Automobile Management Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da40025 delivered on October 1, 200, which is the same purport with respect to similar provisions under the former Equipment Rental Business Act).

x) Accordingly, the Plaintiff is the person holding the right to collateral security of the instant motor vehicle as well as the owner of the instant motor vehicle, and as long as it is recognized as having the external ownership of the instant motor vehicle under the interpretation of the relevant law, it shall not be deemed as a legal violation

(v) As a result, each seizure by the Defendants is an attachment of the instant motor vehicle, which is owned by the Plaintiff, a third party, based on the claim against HongA, and is null and void as it is against those subject to no eligibility to seize. Accordingly, the instant distribution schedule must be amended as stated in the purport of the claim.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons of the judgment as per Disposition.