(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.02.13 2013가단815875

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) 대구지방법원 2015.02.13 2013가단815875

배당이의

Text

1. Regarding B real estate auction cases, among the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on August 21, 2013.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D, the owner of “Tgu Suwon-gu No. 402 of the fourth floor” (Death on November 30, 2010) which is the object of the auction auction as stated in paragraph (1) of the disposition, and the payment order becomes final and conclusive on November 18, 2005, and the total amount of principal and interest accrued from the final and conclusive payment order reaches KRW 49,069,762 as of August 23, 2013.

B. On March 26, 1996, on the object of the auction case, the establishment registration of the mortgage was completed on March 27, 1996, on the ground of the contract to establish the right to collateral security, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 50,00,000, and the debtor D and the mortgagee as the defendant.

C. The real estate auction procedure has been implemented for the subject matter of the above auction case where the ownership transfer registration was completed in the future of the deceased D's heir, and the distribution schedule was drafted on August 21, 2013, stating that the NongHyup Bank Co., Ltd. (the first, the mortgagee, and the applicant creditor) distribute 17,000,000 won to the Defendant (the dividend ratio of 100%), and that distributing 23,911,368 won to the Defendant (the second and third mortgagee).

On August 28, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of the aforementioned distribution, and stated an objection that the distribution to the Defendant is unreasonable, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] No dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment thereof

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim is the most advanced claim, or has been repaid, or has expired by prescription, and the defendant asserts that it is not so.

B. (1) there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's claim is the highest claim or is repaid.

I examined whether the Defendant’s claim has expired by prescription, and argued that the Defendant did not set the due date for the claim and received interest until December 2004. However, there is no evidence that the Defendant received interest by the due date.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.10.17 2018나306209

-전주지방법원 남원지원 2018.01.10 2017가단1364

-대구지방법원 2015.07.16 2015나301937

-대구지방법원포항지원 2017.08.10 2016가단106771

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.30 2015나8758