beta
Text
1. The Defendant limited to B and C in the procedure of public auction on the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 List on December 23, 2015.
Reasons
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The Defendant generally referred to as “instant real estate” in the attached list 1 (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) in accordance with D’s default on taxes in arrears from the office of Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and requested a public auction procedure for the instant building and Nos. 1 to 4 on the attached list 1 to 5 (hereinafter referred to as “instant site”), and commenced the public auction procedure via E in the office of Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu (hereinafter referred to as “instant public auction procedure”).
B. On September 24, 1996, the Plaintiff filed an application for allocation of KRW 1 billion during the instant public sale procedure, among the right to collateral security, which completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 1 billion with respect to the instant building.
C. From 1,004,870,200 won, 975,215,320 won, which remains after deducting 29,654,880 won from 975,215,320 won, 43,215,600 won, which remains after adding deposit interest to the sales amount of the real estate of this case, the Defendant (order 1: 1), 64,635,604 won, 132,056,181 won, 132,05,181 won, 132,056,181 won, to the Plaintiff (order 2: 3: the above two companies are merged with the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Korea Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s 1”) and 155,308,535 won, the original distribution date was set to the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor B and the Intervenor’s 3215.
The Plaintiff raised an objection to the original distribution statement for the Defendant’s Intervenor Dalo Korea, B, and C, on the ground that the remainder of KRW 932,00,320, which deducts expenses for disposition on default and the amount allocated to the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Office from the aforementioned distribution date, should be distributed to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant distributed the public auction proceeds as the original copy (hereinafter “instant disposition”).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3, Eul 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.