Lawsuit of demurrer against distribution

After concluding a lease contract with a lessor, a legitimate lessee who has completed a moving-in report has the right to receive dividends in preference to the defendant who is the seizure right holder, within the scope of a demand for distribution, by the lawful procedures.

Article 154 (Lawsuit of Demurrer against Distribution)

2017 Ghana 12359

aa

Korea

March 8, 2018

March 29, 2018

1. 의정부지방법원 의정부지방법원고양지원 XXXX타경XXXX 부동산임의경매 사건에 관하여 위 법원이 2017. 7. 26. 작성한 배당표 중 피고에 대한 배당액 25,910,826원을 13,910,200원으로, 원고에 대한 배당액 0원을 12,000,000원으로 각 경정한다.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

In respect of the auction of real estate in the case of the auction of real estate in the District Court and the High Court and the High Court and the High Court and the High Court and the High Court and the High Court

Of the dividend table drawn up on July 26, 2017, the amount of dividends 25,910,826 won against the defendant shall be 5,910,826 won:

The amount of dividends against the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 20,000,000, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) BB on November 4, 2010, X x 2-17x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x m at the time of preservation registration.

After that, the administrative district, lot number, apartment name, Dong name, etc. was changed; hereinafter referred to as "the case").

The registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale due to voluntary auction on the same day.

The completion is completed.

B. On November 2, 2010, the Plaintiff’s apartment of this case from BB on November 2, 2010 (the entirety of the Plaintiff before the voluntary auction)

The Plaintiff was owned by husband CCC. The Plaintiff completed the move-in report on May 31, 2001 and resided from around that time.

(B) A lease deposit with an increase of KRW 12 million (8 million around November 30, 201).

the lease of 20 million won, the monthly rent of 600,000 won, and the lease of 12 months; and

On February 15, 2012, after moving to xxxx, to xxxx, on April 24, 2012, the moving-in report was completed and resided in the apartment of this case.

C. Thereafter, with respect to the apartment of the instant case, the District Court of Jung-gu District as the District Court of the Republic of Korea, 2016Taeng 7292

The auction procedure (hereinafter referred to as the "voluntary auction procedure of this case") began, and the plaintiff on June 14, 2016.

BB and the apartment of this case, the lease deposit of KRW 12 million and the term of lease of the apartment of this case shall be January 1, 2010.

2. As to June 2016, asserting that it constitutes a small-sum lessee who entered into a lease agreement as of June 2016.

At the same time, a report on rights and a request for distribution was filed.

D. On July 26, 2017, the above court: (a) distributed KRW 230,291,148, among the amount to be actually distributed on the date of distribution opened on July 26, 2017, KRW 515,710, KRW 00, KRW 183,60,000, and KRW 25,910,826 in the order of priority to the 3rd to the 183,60,00 limited liability company (applicant, collateral security) and the x Savings Bank (beneficiary, collateral security); and (b) drafted a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) that does not distribute to the Plaintiff.

E. Accordingly, the plaintiff was present on the above date of distribution and was distributed to the defendant among the distribution schedule of this case.

The objection against KRW 20 million was made, and on the same day, the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution was filed.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Gap evidence 6 to 10, Eul evidence 1

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with BB on the apartment of this case.

After the conclusion, on April 24, 2012, the voluntary auction in this case as a legitimate lessee who has completed a move-in report again;

Until the completion period for demand for distribution prescribed in the procedure, the lease deposit shall be KRW 12 million according to the lawful procedure.

The plaintiff requested to pay dividends, and the plaintiff is the lessee of a small amount under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

to the extent of the demand for distribution, there is a right to receive dividends in preference to the defendant who is the seizure right holder.

I would like to say.

Therefore, this case was prepared to have priority distributed to the defendant and not distributed to the plaintiff.

Since the distribution schedule is unlawful, 25,910,826 won of the dividend amount against the defendant in the instant distribution schedule

13,910,826 won, and the dividend amount to the plaintiff shall be KRW 12,00,000 respectively.

B. A creditor who has an executory exemplification, a creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a decision to commence the distribution, or a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act and other Acts, may receive a distribution only by the time limited to the case where he has made a request for a distribution by the completion period to demand a distribution. In the event that no legitimate demand for distribution has been made, even if he is a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the substantive Acts, he may not receive a distribution from such proceeds of sale, and even if he has made a request for a distribution by the completion period to demand a distribution, he may not add or extend any claim that has not been demand a distribution after the completion period to demand a distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da65242, Dec. 24, 2008). Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for a small-sum repayment of the deposit of the tenant, which is recognized as the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the Housing Lease Protection Act, constitutes a claim requiring a distribution under the current administrative Court.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are accepted.

It is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.