(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.10.31 2017가단115146

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.10.31 2017가단115146

배당이의

Text

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on April 27, 2017 by the above court with respect to the auction case of real estate B by the Seoul Northern District Court.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 1, 2015 and December 12, 2015, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order with respect to the claim KRW 94,250,000, total amount of KRW 94,250,000, as a preserved bond, as C-owned D Building No. 02 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. C filed an application for voluntary auction with the Seoul Northern District Court B on June 28, 2016 for the instant real estate by failing to pay back the debt of the National Bank’s national bank, and the decision to commence voluntary auction and its registration was completed.

C. On June 27, 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with C to KRW 25,00,000 for the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant contract”) and obtained the fixed date on the same day.

On April 27, 2017, the auction court: (a) distributed KRW 25,00,000 to the Defendant as a first-class lessee on the date of distribution of the above auction procedure; (b) on the other hand, did not distribute to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”); (c) the Plaintiff appeared on the said distribution date and raised an objection against the total amount of KRW 25,00,000 distributed to the Defendant; and (d) filed the instant lawsuit on May 2, 2017, which was seven days thereafter.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that, around the other hand, the contract of this case was entered into in a false manner, and the defendant is the most lessee, so the distribution schedule of this case, which is based on the premise that the defendant is a senior creditor than the plaintiff, should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim. In addition, the contract of this case should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as stated in the purport of

B. We examine the following circumstances, i.e., the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.07.19 2017나40090

-서울북부지방법원 2018.08.29 2017나37896

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.07.10 2018가단50777

-서울북부지방법원 2015.10.15 2014가단34680

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.02 2014가단42506