logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.04.27 2015가단15966
배당이의
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On June 28, 1990, husband completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to subparagraph 1 of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Underground Floor No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On March 25, 2009, husband completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to E on March 9, 2009 (hereinafter “instant transaction”).

On April 10, 2014, with respect to the instant real estate, the auction procedure was initiated by the decision on voluntary auction commencement by this court B.

(hereinafter “instant auction”). On February 14, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted that he leased the instant real estate from E to KRW 60,000,000 (hereinafter “instant auction”). In the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff filed an application for demand for distribution (hereinafter “instant lease”).

On the date of distribution implemented on March 31, 2015, the above auction court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute KRW 78,326,017 to the defendant, instead of distributing to the plaintiff on the date of distribution.

On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 20,000,000 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant on the date of distribution.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff asserted the following facts: (a) without dispute; (b) Gap 1, 3 through 6; (c) Eul 1, and 2; and (d) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (c) the Plaintiff continuously resided in the instant real estate since the 1970s; and (d) at the time of entering into the instant sales contract with Eul, Eul continuously leased the instant real estate in KRW 60,000,000 as lease deposit;

Therefore, the Plaintiff constitutes a small lessee with the top priority repayment right and ought to pay KRW 20,000,000 out of the dividend amount against the Defendant to the Plaintiff.

Judgment

The facts of the Plaintiff’s moving-in report from May 13, 190 to his domicile of the instant real estate do not conflict between the parties. However, the following circumstances, namely, the date of the formation of the instant lease agreement, which are the date of February 14, 2009, are prior to the date of the instant lease agreement, which are the date of February 14, 2009, as the date of the instant lease agreement, are no longer than the date of the instant sale.

arrow