beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments to the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this Court shall accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The plaintiff's assertion constitutes a person having a right to lease on a deposit basis, who is entitled to receive a distribution without a separate demand for distribution, and the distribution schedule was prepared as excluded from the distribution due to the plaintiff's failure to make a lawful demand for distribution.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the money that the plaintiff could have received as unjust enrichment when the plaintiff makes a lawful demand for distribution.
B. When it is impossible to satisfy all creditors taking part in the distribution as a result of the judgment proceeds, the court shall distribute dividends in the order of priority under the Civil Act, the Civil Act, and other Acts (Article 145(2) of the Civil Execution Act), and the order of the mortgagee and the mortgagee shall be determined after the date of the registration.
However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant completed the registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis on July 26, 2006, and the plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a right to lease on a deposit basis on or around September 25, 2012. Thus, the defendant should be paid dividends preferentially to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the plaintiff should receive preferential dividends than the defendant is without merit.
3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.