beta
Text
1. A lease contract concluded on July 24, 2013 between the defendant and the non-party B with respect to 106, Dong 106, Dong 106, which was concluded between the defendant and the non-party B.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank was declared bankrupt on September 26, 2013 by Seoul Central District Court 2013Hahap139, and the Plaintiff was appointed as a trustee in bankruptcy under the Depositor Protection Act.
B. Seoul Mutual Savings Bank (hereinafter “instant apartment”) filed an application for voluntary auction with the Government District Court D in order to receive KRW 143,98,252, interest, and KRW 52,082,359 on the instant apartment in order to be paid the principal amount of the claim against B, who is the owner and the debtor of the said apartment, as the mortgagee of the Gu Government-si C apartment 106, 106, and 106 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).
C. On the other hand, on July 24, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with Nonparty B by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million with respect to Han-gu apartment among the instant apartment units as between July 24, 2013 and July 23, 2014. On July 25, 2013, the Defendant filed a move-in report on the instant apartment units as of July 25, 2013, and filed a report on the right at the above auction procedure to the effect that the Defendant obtained the fixed date in the lease contract on the same day.
Accordingly, on July 9, 2014, the District Court distributed KRW 20 million equivalent to the security deposit for small amount of KRW 142,307,576, out of the amount to be actually distributed after the sale of the instant apartment, to the Defendant, and distributed KRW 121,207,936 to the Plaintiff in the fourth order.
E. However, at the time when the Defendant concluded the above lease contract with Nonparty B, B had no particular property other than the apartment of this case, and the Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation bears considerable debts to many creditors, such as the Seoul Credit Guarantee Foundation, which exceeds the positive property.
F. The Defendant, who is in charge of F’s business, kept only the financial records that remitted the deposit amount of KRW 20 million to Nonparty B, and intended to receive the deposit for lease equivalent to KRW 20 million by pretending the small lessee at the above auction procedure. In fact, the Defendant was not the lessee of the apartment of this case.
[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute.