beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In the case of a compulsory auction of real estate in progress with respect to F land and ground buildings owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”), the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is a lessee who paid deposit amounting to KRW 30 million for the instant building, and made a demand for distribution.
B. On October 22, 2014, this Court drafted a distribution schedule with the content that distributes KRW 22,00,000 (Lessee’s small deposit) to the Defendant in the first order, and KRW 8,000,000 (determined date) in the third order (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).
C. Accordingly, on the aforementioned date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of KRW 30 million against the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on October 28, 2014, which was within one week thereafter.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion form of lease contract submitted by the Defendant, the cancellation of the order of lease registration issued by the Defendant’s application, the withdrawal of the lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the return of lease deposit, and the payment of deposit is unclear, etc., the Defendant is the most lessee who concluded a false lease contract on the instant building, and thus, it is unlawful to deem the Defendant as a legitimate lessee and distribute the total amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant as the lessee, and thus, the instant distribution schedule
3. Determination
A. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff does not assert or prove the facts constituting the grounds for objection against distribution. As such, the obligee who filed an objection against distribution by asserting that the other party’s claim is disguised, shall bear the burden of proof therefor.
(Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178 delivered on November 14, 1997). B.
According to the health care unit, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and Eul evidence No. 8 as to this case, G and the defendant representing the plaintiff on February 20, 2013.