beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff brought a demand for distribution as a lessee with the fixed date, but the auction court did not recognize the demand for distribution in the voluntary auction procedure concerning the fourth floor of the building D (hereinafter “instant house”) in Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City District Court Branch B).
On May 2, 2014, the auction court distributed KRW 223,988,336 as a mortgagee to the Defendant on the date of distribution, and prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 56,841,494 as a mortgagee to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).
However, on November 22, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the condition that deposit is KRW 70 million for the instant housing newly constructed by C and C, and that it is leased for a period from January 30, 201 to December 12, 201, and paid deposit amount of KRW 70 million to C.
Since then, on the wind of the completion of the instant house, the Plaintiff was transferred to the said house on or around December 201, and only started to possess and use it. On December 16, 2011, the Plaintiff made the said move-in report to the said house, and received the fixed date in the said lease contract.
Therefore, since there is an error in the instant distribution schedule made under the premise that the Plaintiff is not a lessee of the fixed date registry, 223,98,36 won of the amount of dividends to the Defendant in the instant distribution schedule should be 210,829,830 won, and 56,841,494 won of the amount of dividends to the Plaintiff should be corrected respectively.
2. The Plaintiff’s claim for judgment is premised on the premise that himself/herself is a legitimate lessee for the instant house.
However, in light of the following circumstances, there is no dispute between the parties, or in view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 12-14 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 2-5, 7, and 8, and witness E and Eul’s testimony and whole pleadings, the plaintiff’s assertion and submission of all circumstances and evidence are legitimate.