The legality of the demand for distribution made by the most lessee

Since the lease of this case is null and void because it constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy, the distribution schedule of this case excluding the plaintiff who demanded a distribution as a small lessee is legitimate.

Article 108 of the Civil Act (Fictitious Declaration of Intention)

2013 Single 19047 Demurrer against the distribution

Park AA

Korea

October 8, 2013

November 26, 2013

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to this Court's auction case of real estate rent, the dividend amount OOOOOO on the defendant among the dividend table prepared by this Court on May 29, 2013 shall be corrected as OOOOO, and the dividend amount OOOOOOO on the plaintiff shall be corrected as OOOO.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2012, the auction procedure was initiated on the O1-gil 17,106, 403 (O2, CCC apartment, hereinafter the instant building) in OB-owned OB-owned O1-gil O17,106, and 403 (O2, CCC apartment, hereinafter the instant building).

B. On January 8, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a demand for distribution by asserting that he/she is a small amount lessee who leased the instant building as an OOO of the lease deposit.

C. On May 29, 2013, this court completed a distribution schedule that, on the date of distribution of the above auction case, the amount of OOOOO won to be actually distributed to OOOO, DD bank, the applicant creditor, and the Defendant (the issuing authority), who is the applicant creditor, distributed OOO director and the delivery authority, distributed OOOO won to the OOO branch, and excluded the Plaintiff from dividends.

D. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and stated an objection against the OO members out of the Defendant’s dividend amount.

[Evidence] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 7, and 10 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, by October 7, 2009, lent approximately KRW AO to B, and it was impossible for BB to repay the loans, and entered into a lease agreement between B and B on November 9, 2009 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). After which, the Plaintiff was a director of the instant building on the end of December 2009 or first after January 13, 2010, the Plaintiff was a small lessee with opposing power over the instant building, and thus, the Plaintiff has the right to receive the priority payment of KRW AO out of the above lease deposit amount as the top priority payment for the instant lease deposit amount to the Plaintiff. However, since the enforcement court, without distributing the said amount to the Defendant, prepares the dividend payment schedule to the Defendant, it shall be corrected that the dividend distribution schedule is made to the Plaintiff.

(2) The defendant's assertion

Since the instant lease agreement was concluded in collusion with BB, the Plaintiff, which is the head of the Gu, and was null and void as it constitutes a false representation of agreement, the instant distribution schedule, excluding the Plaintiff’s dividends, is justifiable.

B. Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the plaintiff prepared a lease deposit for the building of this case between B and OOO or lease term from January 9, 2010, and made a move-in report for the building of this case on April 13, 2010, and obtained a fixed date on February 24, 2012.

However, in light of the following circumstances, B is the Plaintiff’s head, i.e., B’s relocation to the instant building on April 13, 2010 together with his wife (3 years old), and BB continued to have been registered as a resident of the instant building on January 10, 2012, the Plaintiff and BB were registered as resident of 21 months, and the Plaintiff did not transfer 7 OB to the Plaintiff’s residence without any specific residence, despite the Plaintiff’s continued to move 10 O’s demand for payment of obligations such as tax liability and loan liability, etc., it is argued that it was difficult to view BB as the Plaintiff’s head at the time of the instant lease, i.e., e., 00, 7O’s relocation to the Plaintiff’s head at the time of the instant lease, and that it was difficult for the Plaintiff to gather more than the market price of the instant building, i.e., 201 O., 200.

Therefore, the instant distribution schedule, except for the Plaintiff who demanded a distribution as a small lessee, is justifiable. Therefore, the prior Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit on the premise of objection.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.