beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. As to the case of the compulsory auction of real estate C by the Chuncheon District Court, the above court shall decide on October 2016.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant is the person in a de facto marital relationship with D and is the most lessee and the lease agreement of the housing of this case is null and void based on a false conspiracy, the distribution schedule should be revised by eliminating the amount of dividends to the defendant and distributing it to the plaintiff.
In regard to this, the Defendant: (a) had been living with D; (b) however, D was a director in Seoul around 201, and only the Defendant had resided in the instant house; (c) paid D the sum of KRW 27,500,000,000, including the lease deposit of KRW 25,000,000 and the annual rent of KRW 2,50,000 for the instant house; and (d) leased the instant house from D to January 22, 2017.
B. Determination 1) The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection to a distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in the event that the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant’s claim was not constituted, the Defendant is liable to prove the fact of the cause of the claim, and in the event that the Plaintiff claims that the claim was null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy or extinguished by repayment, the Plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the grounds for disability or extinguishment, but if the Defendant’s assertion as to the establishment of the claim and the contents of evidence are difficult to believe as they are in violation of logical and empirical rules, it is reasonable to consider such circumstances in determining whether the claim is false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da37555, Sept. 13, 2013). 2)