Expenses for registration by subrogation of inheritance shall not be deemed execution expenses paid for the purpose of compulsory execution.

If a creditor registers inheritance in the future of a debtor on behalf of a debtor, the expenses incurred in registering subrogation cannot be deemed expenses incurred in the direct purpose of compulsory execution.

Civil Act § 688(Mandatary's right to claim reimbursement of expenses, etc.)

Daegu District Court-2014-Kadan-3224

○○○○

Korea

November 11, 2014

2014.02.02

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

With respect to the auction of real estate rent in Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, 2013 000, the dividend amount of 13,315,692 won against the defendant among the dividend table prepared on June 11, 2014 by the above court, shall be corrected to 8,953,942 won, and the dividend amount of 143,272,470 won against the plaintiff to 147,634,220 won, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 2010, the Plaintiff implemented a loan to Nonparty A with Nonparty A, and on October 22, 2010, completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the above AA’s ownership of 00:00 to 00,000 to 000,000 from 00 to 000 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. As the above AA died on February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff completed the inheritance registration of the instant apartment on July 8, 2013 by subrogationing Nonparty BB, the heir of the AA, on behalf of Nonparty BB.

C. Upon the Plaintiff’s application, the procedure of voluntary auction was commenced as to the instant apartment as Daegu District Court Daegu District Court and Daegu District Court and Gwangju District Court and 2013 others and 0000,000. On June 11, 2014, the said house administrative court opened a distribution date and opened a distribution date and prepared a distribution schedule that contains the content of allocating KRW 143,272,470 to the Defendant, who is the creditor (the second priority), who is the seizure authority, and the Defendant, as the creditor (the second priority), the execution cost deducted from the sale price of KRW 226,117,50,00, after deducting KRW 3,183,582 from the sale price of the instant apartment from the total of KRW 236,00,00.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff paid KRW 4,361,750 in order to complete the inheritance registration of the apartment of this case in the name of Nonparty BB, and the above subrogated registration expenses are the highest priority in the proceeds of the sale.

on the part of the plaintiff for the execution of the subrogated registration expenses paid by the plaintiff. However, the above House Administrative Court

This does not include a distribution schedule as stated in the purport of the claim, because it is unlawful.

must be corrected.

B. Determination

If a creditor registers inheritance in the future on behalf of a debtor on behalf of a debtor, the expenses for the registration of subrogation cannot be deemed to be the expenses for execution that are paid for the direct purpose of compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Order 96Da8, Aug. 21, 1996). Thus, the above assertion by the first-party plaintiff on a different premise is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.