beta
Text
1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on March 10, 2020 with respect to the auction case of real estate C in the Incheon District Court C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 22, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 72,000,000 to D on the same day, and “the real estate of this case less than the Michuhol-gu building F of Michuhol-gu, which is owned D on the same day.”
(B) As to the instant real estate, the Plaintiff is a creditor who created a right to collateral security with a maximum debt amount of KRW 93,600,000. B. The Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction of real estate regarding the instant real estate with the Incheon District Court C, and the auction procedure of real estate was commenced. The said court, on March 10, 2020, prepared a distribution schedule with the Defendant who demanded the distribution of KRW 20,880,00 in the amount to be actually distributed on March 10, 2020, and KRW 369,480 in the Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, the delivery authority, and KRW 369,510,90 in the amount to be distributed to the Plaintiff in the order of KRW 369,480 in the second order in the second order in the Michuhol-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City. C. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution of the said voluntary auction procedure, and on March 16, 2020.
each entry and the purport of the whole pleading
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant, as the most lessee, prepared a false lease contract, and received the distribution by demanding a distribution as a small lessee; (b) even if the Defendant is not the most lessee, the distribution of dividends to the Defendant should be revoked; and (c) even if the Defendant is not the most lessee, the unlawful gains on the overdue rent or rent from June 2015 to January 20, 2020 shall be deducted from the lease deposit; and (d) there is no remaining lease deposit, and thus, the distribution to the Defendant shall be revoked.
B. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1-5, 9, and 11-17 and the purport of the entire pleadings, determination as to the argument of the most lessee 1 is as follows: ① G, the Defendant’s imprisonment father, is a broker of the H Licensed Real Estate Agent Office I on February 10, 2012, between D and D.