logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2016. 05. 25. 선고 2015가단22130 판결
배당이의[국패]
Title

Demurrer against distribution

Summary

The amount of dividends to the Defendant’s Republic of Korea shall be deleted to KRW 782,559, and the amount of dividends to Plaintiff BB shall be adjusted to KRW 60,865,602,109,711,352, respectively.

Related statutes

Article 365 of the Civil Act

Cases

F support of the Cheongju District Court 2015 Ghana 22130 Demurrer

Plaintiff

DD et al.1

Defendant

Republic of Korea and 2

Conclusion of Pleadings

March 30, 2016

Imposition of Judgment

May 25, 2016

1. Basic facts

A. As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case"), the plaintiff

Young 25/100 Shares, CCC 30/100 Shares, EE was co-owners with 45/100 shares.

C. As to the share of CCC among each of the instant real property, Plaintiff DD shall be the maximum debt amount.

A. The person who created the right to collateral security of KRW 500,000. Defendant AA is a person who created the right to collateral security of KRW 500,000.

A person who establishes a right to collateral security of KRW 700,000,000 for EE’s share is the maximum debt amount.

the Republic of Korea (the FF Tax Office of the competent authority) and the defendant National Health Insurance Corporation (FF branch offices) shall substitute the E;

are entitled to deliver such bonds.

B. FF support of the Cheongju District Court 2014 Doz. 3111, 2014 Doz. 5858

(Consolidated) On July 15, 2015, Defendant AA for a compulsory auction of real property amounting to KRW 105,505,920, recipient

For the Republic of Korea, 782,559 won for the Republic of Korea and the National Health Insurance Corporation (F branch offices)

1,172,173 won, 73,038,722 won, and 60,865,602 won, for Plaintiff BB, for Plaintiff DD

the distribution schedule was drawn up to the effect that each distribution is made.

C. On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiffs raised an objection against the total amount of dividends distributed by the Defendants on the date of distribution.

A lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case was filed within one week thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

(a) The ownership of part of the real estate on which joint mortgage has been established is owned by the debtor; and

at the same time the auction price of each of the above immovables is distributed in the case of the ownership of the property pledged by the surety.

section 481 and section 482 of the Civil Code by subrogation of the person who has pledged his property to secure his property.

Considering that it is in a position to exercise a security interest in its own property;

"Where several immovables have been mortgaged as security for the same bond, the auction stand for such immovables.

If dividends are distributed simultaneously, the allotment of the claims shall be determined in proportion to the proceeds of the auction sale of each immovable.

It is reasonable to see that Article 368 (1) of the Civil Code, which provides that "the Civil Code shall not apply."

In such a case, the court of auction shall be the joint mortgagee from the proceeds of the auction of the immovables owned by the debtor.

(1) The property owned by the property to secure another's property shall be distributed preferentially to the Corporation and only if there is a shortage.

additional dividends from the auction proceeds (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da41475 Decided April 15, 2010)

Judgment

[Reference]

In light of the above legal principles, according to the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the above auction

The amount to be actually distributed in the proceeding is 852,480,312, and the GG Credit Union shall be EE.

To secure a claim against the entire immovable property of this case, the maximum debt amount

The secured debt amount of KRW 600,000 was set up, and the actual secured debt amount of KRW 580,017,906 was set up

The office, Kim Jin, Lee Jin, Lee Dong-ho, and defendant AA as a small lessee, respectively.

Facts consisting of KRW 12,00,000, KRW 5,000,000, KRW 12,000,000 (Defendant AA)

As well as in the position of mortgagee, whether the distribution schedule is made to the effect that it is distributed in the position of small lessee.

F. F.C. 2,097,430 won credit for EE;

The facts that Plaintiff DD’s actual secured debt of the right to collateral security was a father-holder, and the actual secured debt amount of Plaintiff DD was 403,906,849.

This recognition.

According to this, 852,480,312 of the total dividend amount of 852,480,312 deposit of Kim Jin-jin, a small lessee.

12,00,000 won, deposit money of this 5,000,000 won, and deposit money of Defendant AA 12,00,000 won

Of others, 823,480,312 (=852,480,312) -12,00,000 won-5,000,000 won-12,00,000 won) remaining

는다(원고들은 김○○진, 이▼▼이고, AAA이 EEE과 사이에 임대차계약을 체결하였

Since it is a person who had the right to claim the return of the lease deposit against EE only; and

어서 EEE의 지분 상당 금액에서 배당받아야 한다고 주장하나, 김○○, 이▼▼, 피고

there is no evidence to deem that AA entered into a lease agreement only with EE;

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is rejected. The above money is about each real estate of this case.

If shares are divided by EE, 370,566,140 won (=823,480,312 won x 45/100, and won for EE’s shares

less than 247,04,093 (=823,480,312) for the shares ofCC and 247,04,093

x30/100) With respect to the shares of Plaintiff BB, 205,870,078 (=823,480,312 x 25/100)

F. F. F. F. from 370,566,140 won equivalent to the equity interest of the EE. F. F. 2,097,430 won

Exclusions include KRW 368,468,710 (=370,566,140-2,097,430).

On the other hand, with respect to the right to collateral security of the GG Credit Cooperatives, Plaintiffs BB and CCC shall secure the property of the surety.

GG Credit Union is in the position of 368,468,710 won, an amount equivalent to the above EE’s equity interest.

(=580,017,906 -368,468,710 won, 211,549,196 won (=580,017,906)

(z) be distributed from each share of the CCC and the Plaintiff BB, which is a surety to secure another’s property;

If the above KRW 211,549,196 is divided by shares of CCC and Plaintiff BB, the shares of CCC are divided by shares.

With respect to the portion of 115,390,470 won (=211,549,196 won x 30/55) and the portion of Plaintiff BB

96,158,725 won (=211,549,196 won x 25/55). Ultimately, the amount equivalent to the share of the CCC is equivalent to the share.

131,653,623 won (=247,04,093 won-15,390,470 won) other than the share of Plaintiff BB, and the amount equivalent to the share of Plaintiff BB

The 109,711,353 won (=205,870,078 won-96,158,725) remain.

131,653,623 won, equivalent to the share of the above CCC, shall be the amount of the actual secured debt

403,906,849) All dividends must be paid to the Plaintiff DDR. The Defendant, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, is the right to collateral security.

The subject matter of AAA’s right to collateral security is the shares of EE, Defendant Republic of Korea, National Health Insurance Corporation.

(F) The F branch office is also a person with a claim against EE, with respect to the shares of EE, remaining

Since there is no way to do so, the dividend amount of the defendants is zero won.

Therefore, FF support of the Cheongju District Court 2014 Doz. 3111, 2014 Doz. 5858, Cheongju District Court for the compulsory auction of real estate

With respect to the case, the amount of dividends to the defendant AA among the dividend table prepared by the court on July 15, 2015.

105,505,920 won, dividend amount for Defendant Republic of Korea 782,559 won, Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation (FF)

amount of dividends to plaintiffs 1,172,173 shall be deleted, and the amount of dividends to plaintiffs DD shall be deleted.

73,038,722 won 131,653,623 won, and 60,865,602 won for dividends to Plaintiff BB

As sought, each correction of KRW 109,711,352 is appropriate.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition.

Therefore, the remaining claims are dismissed on the ground that they are without merit.

arrow