Creditors of small-sum lease deposit and objection to distribution

Where a creditor who did not demand a distribution by the deadline for demanding a distribution has filed an objection on the date of distribution, whether a legitimate person has filed a formal objection

The contents of the judgment are the same as attachment.

2017 Single 8807 Objection against a distribution

*

Gyeonggi Credit Guarantee Foundation and 2

on 19, 2017

on October 1, 2018 09

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared on April 3, 2017 by the above court with respect to the auction case of real estate rental in order to distribute dividends of KRW 1,133,871 to the Republic of Korea and KRW 7,152,759 to the defendant National Health Insurance Corporation, KRW 21,922,02,020 to the defendant Sports Credit Guarantee Foundation, KRW 17,208,650 to the plaintiff, and KRW 13,000 to the plaintiff, respectively, shall be corrected.

We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants by attending the meeting on the date of distribution and raising an objection, on the ground that he was unable to make a demand for distribution because he was aware of the progress of the auction after the completion period for the demand for distribution was due to the lack of notification on the progress of the auction, among the real estate subject to auction of the auction of the real estate auction case of Jung Government District Court 2016Taea2625, which was located in the attached list.

A person standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution has been present on the date of distribution and raised an objection on the substantive basis of the distribution schedule, and in order for a creditor to be present on the date of distribution as a creditor and to file an objection on the substantive basis of the distribution schedule, the creditor who was not entitled to lawfully demand a distribution by the deadline for requesting a distribution. The creditor who did not lawfully demand a distribution does not have the right to appear on the date of distribution on the date of distribution and make an objection on the date of distribution, and on the date of distribution, has no right to file an objection on the distribution schedule. Thus, even if such person appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection on the distribution schedule, it is unreasonable to file an objection, and there is no right to file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da63155, Sept. 4, 2002; 2003Da27696, Aug. 22, 2014).

A’s entry, and according to the significant facts of this Court, the court shall include the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

the auction of real estate owned by another shall be held by the District Court 2016 Maz. 22625

A. On September 1, 2016, the completion period for the demand for distribution was announced as of November 21, 2016, and on September 8, 2016, the notification of the lessee (including matters concerning the completion period for the demand for distribution) was sent by registered mail to the Plaintiff, who is the lessee, on September 8, 2016 in the said auction procedure, and returned to the Plaintiff on two occasions. On September 26, 2016, another notification was sent by registered mail to the lessee. On September 26, 2016, the Plaintiff did not demand a distribution by November 21, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application for a request for the extension of the completion period for the demand for distribution on March 30, 2017, but the date of distribution was opened on April 3, 2017, and the Plaintiff was present and prepared on the same day, and the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that each of the above parts of the distribution schedule as to the Defendants’ dividends.

According to the above facts of recognition, the above auction court shall pay dividends in accordance with Article 84(2) of the Civil Execution Act.

The completion period of the request shall be publicly notified, and the completion period of the demand for distribution shall be recorded to the plaintiff who is the creditor.

Since the notice was sent by registered mail, the progress of the procedure is legitimate, and the plaintiff is lawful.

Even though there exists a small-sum lease deposit claim as alleged, as long as the plaintiff did not lawfully demand a distribution by the completion date of the demand for distribution, there is no standing to sue to file a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case.

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.