(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가단3351

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.10.17 2017가단3351

배당이의

Text

1. Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on January 23, 2017 with respect to the auction of the real estate B in Incheon District Court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Southern-gu Carryover 201 (hereinafter “instant housing”) owned D’s original ownership. As of April 16, 2010, the registration of the establishment of the first priority mortgage in the Plaintiff’s name of the maximum debt amount of KRW 78,000,000 was completed, as of April 23, 2010, the registration of the establishment of the second priority class E in the name of the maximum debt amount of KRW 20,000,000, respectively.

B. On December 8, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with D to lease the instant house in KRW 22,00,000 without rent, and completed the move-in report and the acquisition of the fixed date on January 8, 2016.

C. As D did not pay the Plaintiff’s debt, the Plaintiff applied for voluntary auction on the instant housing. On April 27, 2016, the decision to commence voluntary auction (hereinafter “instant auction”) was rendered to the Incheon District Court B, and the Defendant reported the right of lease under the instant lease agreement on July 11, 2016.

On January 23, 2017, the court of auction prepared a distribution schedule to distribute the amount of 41,071,817 won out of the amount of credit of 22,00,000 won among the amount of credit of 22,00,000 won and the amount of credit of 41,071,817 out of the amount of credit of 74,676,810 won.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the above date of distribution and raised an objection to the total amount of distribution to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 and Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is a false tenant who prepared only the external appearance of the lease contract in collusion with D, and the defendant did not actually reside in the house of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is not a small lessee as prescribed by the Housing Lease Protection Act, so the dividend table for the auction of this case should be corrected by eliminating the dividend amount of 20,000,000 to the defendant and increasing the dividend amount to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

(a) B.

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.07.18 2016가단60289

-인천지방법원 2017.12.21 2017가단24686

-대구지방법원김천지원 2014.10.15 2014가단8437

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.11.25 2014가단33208

-인천지방법원 2015.06.11 2014가단211304