logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.04.29 2015나53507
배당이의
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the auction of the real estate B, the above court.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that, in the auction procedure of this case, the defendant concluded a false lease agreement with C for the purpose of receiving dividends as a small lessee under the Housing Lease Protection Act, or a lessee who is not entitled to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, the defendant asserts that the distribution based on the premise that the defendant is a genuine lessee is illegal.

The defendant asserts that the amount of dividend against the defendant in the distribution schedule of this case is justified, since the defendant entered into a lease contract with C for the purpose of residing in the apartment of this case, and since the defendant cannot be seen as the most lessee, such as the payment of all the lease deposit after the payment of all the lease deposit.

B. 1) The legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to ensure the stability of the residential life of the people by prescribing special cases concerning residential buildings (Article 1 of the same Act). Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the lessee may be paid a certain amount of the deposit in preference to other secured creditors in the case of small-sum lessee, even if the deposit is small-sum lessee, the lease deposit is larger than the other secured creditors. Therefore, even if it is small-sum lessee’s status as other secured creditors, it is reasonable to guarantee the recovery of the deposit in the case of small-sum lessee, and it is an exception to the general provisions of the Civil Act. In light of such legislative purpose and institutional intent, the obligee was residing at least after concluding a lease contract with the debtor with respect to the housing owned by the obligor and completing the move-in

arrow