logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2020.01.16 2019나15227
배당이의
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2014, the Defendant completed the registration of a housing lease on the ground of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 25,000,000, lease date and the occupancy commencement date on March 27, 2014 on the respective buildings listed in Articles 2 and 2 (3) of the Attached List E (hereinafter “each building of this case”) owned by E (hereinafter “each building of this case”), and on the ground of the lease registration order (2014Kao38, the ASEAN court in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014Kao38) of the attached Table No. 2013, Oct. 17, 2013; and the resident registration date on November 15, 2013.

B. On September 29, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for a compulsory auction of this case with a claim amounting to KRW 484,422,417, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with the same court in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2016Kahap101245, supra, on September 29, 2017.

Daejeon District Court rendered a decision to commence auction on November 13, 2017.

C. On the date of distribution on November 21, 2018, which was held according to the progress of the procedure for compulsory auction by official auction, the instant distribution schedule was prepared as follows: (a) on the date of distribution on November 21, 2018, the Defendant was paid KRW 25,00,000 to the fourth (right of lease registration), and (b) the Plaintiff was paid KRW 23,306,950 to the seventh (applicant

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 10 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not have paid KRW 25,000,000 to E, instead of the lessee of each building of this case, although he did not have paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 25,00,000,000, in the process of the compulsory auction of this case, the defendant

Therefore, the instant dividend table ought to be revised to distribute the dividend amount to the Plaintiff.

B. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with E to reside in part of each of the instant buildings, and paid KRW 25,00,000 as the lease deposit in cash.

The defendant shall return the lease deposit to E around March 2014, as necessary for business.

arrow