logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.16 2017고정692
경매방해등
Text

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, each of them is 100.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a lessee who has leased 2 partitionss, part of the second floor housing and land in Seodaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”) in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and F is a G, the owner of the instant housing, and Defendant C is a creditor who has lent money to F.

Defendant

A around April 30, 2008, the second floor room 2 K, part of the instant housing, was leased from G to KRW 50 million on April 2012 while leaving the country around April 6, 2012, and received full return of KRW 50 million from G on two occasions around March 6, 2013 and around July 1, 2013.

The amount of KRW 50 million was that F borrowed from Defendant C and paid to Defendant A.

On the other hand, on October 10, 201, I, the F’s creditor, set up a mortgage of the maximum amount of KRW 260 million on the instant house. On June 25, 2013, I applied for a voluntary auction based on the above collateral and started the auction procedure with the Seoul Western District Court J on June 25, 2013.

1. The Defendants and F, who interfered with the auction, committed an attempt to interfere with the auction by making out a false appearance that the instant house remains in the instant house, a lessee of the instant house, and Defendant A continued to be the lessee of the instant house, and did not receive the lease deposit, on the ground that the instant house will be sold in accordance with the auction procedure.

Accordingly, around August 2013, Defendants and F met at the infinite coffee shop in Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, and using that remaining in the instant house with Defendant A’s resident registration, Defendant A continues to occupy the instant house, and Defendant A applied for a false dividend as if he were the genuine lessee with preferential right to repayment. Accordingly, Defendant A applied for a false dividend to the court, and F and Defendant C asked Defendant A’s answer in proceeding with the distribution application procedure.

arrow