beta
Text
1. With respect to the case of the secondary branch court B and C (duplicate) of the Incheon District Court, the above court on April 18, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 26, 2005, J purchased the real estate stated in the conjunctive claim (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 28, 2006. Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Han Bank”) with respect to the instant real estate, registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 417.6 million per day, and registered the establishment of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 39 million on June 29, 2007, respectively.
B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on January 25, 2006, J purchased No. 111 of the first floor among the aggregate buildings to which the instant real estate belongs (hereinafter “No. 111”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer on November 13, 2006. As to No. 111 of Jun. 18, 2007, Han Bank established the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 273.6 million.
C. The Han Bank transferred to the Plaintiff each of the instant real estate and No. 111 as well as the claims against J secured thereby. D.
With respect to the instant real estate and subparagraph 111, the decision of voluntary auction was rendered on April 19, 2013 by the Incheon District Court Branch B, and on May 23, 2013 by the above court C.
E. On May 15, 2013, the Defendant: (a) demanded a distribution of the lease deposit on the ground that “the instant real estate was leased from J on September 5, 201 to KRW 40 million”; and (b) on April 18, 2014, the said court rendered a demand for distribution of KRW 16,000,000 out of the amount to be distributed in relation to the sale of the instant real estate, to the Defendant; and (c) under the distribution schedule stating that each of the amounts to be distributed to the Plaintiff was distributed to the Plaintiff.”
was drawn up.
2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 9 as to the main claim, a lease contract between J and the defendant concerning the real estate of this case is null and void by a false representation, or its main purpose is not to use or benefit from the real estate of this case, but to be protected as a small lessee and takes precedence over the mortgagee.