logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.06.26 2014가단232301
배당이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 58,500,000 with respect to the third floor of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) on September 11, 2013, the Plaintiff voluntarily decided to commence auction with regard to the instant real estate as B by this court.

B. On April 10, 2013, the Defendant leased the instant real estate by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 22,00,000,000 from April 10, 201 to April 10, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and completed the move-in report on April 11, 2013 and received the fixed date on the same day.

C. In the aforementioned voluntary auction case, on November 19, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for a report on the right to lease deposit and a demand for distribution with respect to the said lease deposit, and this court, on July 3, 2014, prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) in order of 50,298,450 won, which is the date of distribution, to the Defendant of the small-sum lessee in the order of 22,00,000 won and 2nd order (the pertinent tax), to the Defendant of Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Incheon, with the order of 73,880 won and 3rd order (the pertinent tax), to distribute the amount of KRW 28,224,570 to the Plaintiff of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 10, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and decision-making plaintiff asserted that the defendant, in collusion with C, prepared a false lease contract in order to receive a preferential repayment of small-sum lease deposit, and is the most lessee who received dividends.

The legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to ensure the stability of the residential life of citizens by prescribing special cases concerning residential buildings (Article 1), and to ensure that the lessee can be paid a certain amount of deposit in preference to other secured creditors under Article 8 (1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

arrow