logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.04.25 2018나22459
배당이의
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. As to this part of the facts, the corresponding part of the grounds for the judgment of the first instance (hereinafter “the relevant facts”) shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is the most lessee who was the owner of the instant apartment in collusion with the deceased and entered into a formal lease contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff, a collateral security holder, should be given priority over the Defendant. 2) As a licensed real estate agent N in the deceased’s side entered into a lease agreement on the instant apartment without obtaining the power of representation from the deceased, the instant lease agreement is null and void.

B. Determination 1 on the assertion that the instant lease agreement is null and void as a contract with false representation in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is null and void. Thus, in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff did not assert or prove the facts constituting the grounds for objection against distribution, the obligee who filed an objection to distribution by asserting that the other party’s claim has been disguised (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178, Nov. 14, 1997). In addition, in order to deem the housing lease agreement to constitute a false representation, the Defendant concluded the lease agreement with the deceased on the following date: (a) as the type of the housing lease agreement was lent for the purpose of acquiring the opposing power as the housing lease; and (b) it should be recognized that the Plaintiff had no purpose of using and gaining profit from the housing for residential purpose (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da24184, 24191, Mar. 12, 2002).

arrow