beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On February 4, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired by transfer the right to a loan against No. C and the right to collateral security on the instant apartment owned by No.C from the Nonghyup Bank, and was voluntarily decided to commence auction on February 4, 2013.
B. On July 16, 2012, the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement between C and C with the lease deposit for KRW 40 million and the lease term for KRW 24 months from July 16, 2012.
C. In the above auction procedure, on October 31, 2013, the date of distribution was 22,00,000 won, and 2nd order issued to the defendant who demanded a distribution as a small lessee of small amount (the pertinent tax), and 898,060 won, 967,121 won, and 306,68,834 won, and 2,084,239 won, to the Incheon Southern-gu, Incheon National Health Insurance Corporation Vice-Governor of the National Health Insurance Corporation in the third order, and the applicant creditor (right mortgagee), were prepared by the distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). The plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the defendant’s dividends, and on November 7, 2013, the plaintiff brought a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of the instant dividends.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, 10, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The distribution schedule of this case, which recognized the Defendant as a small lessee and distributed KRW 22,00,000,00, should be revised as the primary purport of the claim, because it is merely the most lessee who is not entitled to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act that entered into the instant lease agreement to receive the dividend of the small lease deposit.
Preliminaryly, C entered into the instant lease agreement with respect to the apartment of this case, which is the only real estate, with excess of debt, and thus, it should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, and as stated in the preliminary claim in the way of restitution.