logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.07.02 2014가단42506
배당이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with C to lease (hereinafter “instant contract”) the lease deposit amount of KRW 28,000,000,000, and the period from June 7, 2013 to June 6, 2015 (hereinafter “instant contract”) between D’s agent and D on May 24, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 2,000,00,000 on May 24, 2013 to C, and completed the move-in report on June 10, 2013.

B. On October 18, 2013, upon the Defendant’s application, who is a mortgagee of the instant housing, there was a decision to commence a real estate auction case as Seoul Northern District Court B on October 23, 2014. On October 23, 2014, the same court distributed KRW 110,362,963 to Nowon-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as to the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution of the said auction procedure, and set up a distribution schedule with the second priority to distribute KRW 110,270,683 to the Defendant, who is a mortgagee, who is a collective security.

C. On the above distribution date, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 25,00,000 among the Defendant’s dividends, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on October 29, 2014, which was within one week thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence No. 9, Evidence No. 11, Evidence No. 12-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is that the Plaintiff is the genuine lessee who entered into a lease agreement on the instant housing and actually resided in the instant housing, and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive the dividend of KRW 25,000,000 as the top priority as small lessee under Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and thus, the instant distribution schedule, which was made out of the content that did not distribute the small amount deposit to the Plaintiff, is unreasonable, and thus, should be revised as described in the purport of the claim.

(b) Determination Correspondings, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Gap evidence Nos. 10 to 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 5 (including all household numbers); and

arrow