logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.10 2018가단13026
배당이의의 소
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff registered its business on January 15, 2010 and obtained a fixed date on a lease of 139 square meters and its ground buildings owned by D-owned Seoul Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu. In the case of a compulsory auction by the Seoul Central District Court C real estate, for which the Defendant applied for compulsory auction on the said land, the Plaintiff was paid dividends in preference to the Defendant, while the Plaintiff was not paid dividends in full, on the other hand, the Defendant received dividends in KRW 23,745,862. Therefore, the Plaintiff asserted that the amount of dividends against the Defendant under the distribution schedule should be deleted and distributed to the Plaintiff.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff is a true tenant with opposing power and preferential right to payment under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

Rather, according to the facts without dispute between the parties, Gap 3 and 4 evidence, the plaintiff and the owner D are women, and the contract was concluded on January 15, 2010 under the lease agreement between the plaintiff and D and the same day was made. The fixed date was obtained as of September 25, 2017. On the other hand, the registration of the decision to commence compulsory auction was completed upon the defendant's request on July 12, 2017, which was before the above fixed date, and the plaintiff's business registration was made under the name of the FF branch of the Seoul Metropolitan Government branch, not the plaintiff's name, but the registration was made under the name of the plaintiff, and there was a building registered in the above land or registered in the building ledger, and the defendant can be known that the building to be leased in the above lease agreement was a vinyl, so it is difficult to view it as the plaintiff with the opposing power as a genuine tenant in the auction procedure.

arrow