logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2017.09.28 2017가단3527
배당이의
Text

1. A distribution schedule prepared on June 1, 2017 by the said court with respect to the auction case of real estate B in the Gwangju District Court Gwangju District Court Gwangju District Court Sejong District Court B.

Reasons

1. In the auction procedure (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”), prior to the preparation of the instant distribution schedule, the Defendant asserted that he was a small lessee under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act for the instant apartment, and filed a report on the right and demand for distribution with the court of execution, by asserting that he was a small lessee under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act for the instant apartment.

On June 1, 2017, a court of execution prepared and presented a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 571,031,648 to the Plaintiff, who is the applicant creditor and the mortgagee, and KRW 14,000,000 to the Defendant, who is the lessee of a small amount of money (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”), and the Plaintiff stated an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the actual tenant of the apartment of this case is a limited liability company D (hereinafter "D"), and D is not entitled to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the defendant prepared a lease contract for the purpose of receiving dividends in the auction procedure of this case, so the defendant is the most lessee, and the defendant must correct the distribution schedule of this case.

In this regard, the defendant paid 30,000,000 won as deposit and actually resided in the apartment of this case from June 9, 2015, it is not the most lessee.

B. First, we examine whether the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on the instant apartment.

In line with the Defendant’s argument, each of the evidence Nos. 3-2 and 6-2 of the evidence Nos. 3-2 and 6-2 of the instant apartment shall be deemed as follows, and in full view of the facts revealed in the process of the instant pleadings, it cannot be believed, and the other evidence submitted by the Defendant alone

arrow