beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s real estate stated in the separate sheet against C is 300,000 under the lease agreement dated September 12, 2018.
Reasons
Basic Facts
C on October 1, 2018, acquired ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
With respect to the instant real estate on October 12, 2018, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage, which became the Plaintiff, was completed on October 12, 2018, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 250,000,000,000;
(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). On May 16, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of the instant real estate upon the instant collateral security on May 16, 2019, and on May 29, 2019, voluntarily decided to commence auction with the Jung-gu District Court E on May 29, 2019
(hereinafter “instant auction”). On August 14, 2019, the Defendant submitted a report on the right to lease deposit and an application for demand for distribution on the ground that “the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on September 12, 2018 with respect to the instant real estate by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million and the term of lease from September 28, 2018 to September 27, 2020” to the instant auction court.
On September 6, 2019, the defendant submitted a report on the right to change the lease deposit from the previous KRW 200 million to KRW 300 million to the auction court of this case and a written application for demand for distribution.
[Grounds for recognition] The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant concluded a lease contract with C with the security deposit amount of KRW 300 million with respect to the real estate of this case, although the defendant asserted that the amount of the security deposit is not consistent, and the security deposit amount of KRW 300 million is a large amount in light of the real estate price of this case, the defendant's claim that at least KRW 100 million among the security deposit return claim of the security deposit for lease does not exist. Thus, the defendant's claim as part of the claim is to seek confirmation of the absence of the above security deposit amount of KRW 100 million.
Judgment
The defendant prepared the first lease contract.