logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.11.26 2019가합26889
배당이의
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building D and 2nd above ground in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Defendant is the mortgagee of the right to collateral security regarding the instant real estate.

B. From around 1998, the Defendant continuously lent money to the Plaintiff who was in close friendship. On May 30, 2012, the Defendant settled the existing loan with the Plaintiff as KRW 360,000,000 (interest rate of KRW 5.5% per annum; hereinafter “instant loan”). On the same day, the Defendant set up the right to collateral security (hereinafter “mortgage”) that set the maximum debt amount of the instant real estate as KRW 360,000,000 with respect to the instant real estate.

C. On July 25, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for voluntary auction with the Seoul Northern District Court C regarding the instant real estate on July 25, 2018, and received a voluntary decision to commence auction from the said court on July 26, 2018.

On September 25, 2019, the court of auction prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the content that distributes the surplus amount of KRW 220,946,532 to the Defendant of the mortgagee, in the order of 469,64,680, and 360,000, and 6170, in the order of 1,052, 208,072, which is the date of distribution, to be actually distributed to the Plaintiff, among the amount of KRW 1,610,69,690, and 2nd order of 469,644,690, and 3nd order of 360,000, and 4th order of 6,170, and 6,170, and 5th order

E. On October 1, 2019, the Plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of the Defendant’s dividends on the date of distribution, and filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant real estate, is a merchant who actually operated the restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) under the name of “E” (the trade name was changed to “F”) while using the position of “representative” or “president” in the instant real estate.

arrow