beta
Text
1. It was drawn up by the above court on May 27, 2015 with respect to the auction of the real estate B in Gyeyang-gu District Court Goyang-gu.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 6, 2011, ABK Savings Bank (hereinafter “AB”) extended loans to C on April 6, 201, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment with a maximum debt amount of KRW 83,200,00 with respect to “No. 414 (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) on the 4th floor of Mangyang-gu, Mangyang-gu, U.S., U.S. (hereinafter “U.S.”).
B. Upon delay in the principal and interest of the loan, the non-party bank filed an application for the commencement of voluntary auction of the instant officetel with the High Government District Court, around June 2014, and on June 27, 2014, the auction procedure was conducted following the decision to commence the auction of the said court.
C. On August 1, 2013, the Defendant leased the deposit amount of KRW 24,00,000 to C and the instant officetel, and applied for a report on the right and a demand for distribution in the said auction procedure on September 4, 2013 on the grounds that the move-in report and the fixed date were received.
When the above auction procedure is in progress, the plaintiff acquired the entire collateral security claim against the non-party bank C from the non-party bank and participated in the auction procedure.
E. On May 27, 2015, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule containing the content that the Defendant distributes KRW 22,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 71,858,109 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) in the first order on the ground that the Defendant is a small lessee.
F. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the total amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit within seven days thereafter.
【Ground for Recognition: Each entry of evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 9, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. In the center of the plaintiff, the defendant is merely a tenant and is not a tenant. Thus, the distribution schedule of this case under the premise that the defendant is a legitimate tenant under the Housing Lease Protection Act should be revised.
Preliminaryly, even if the defendant assumes that he is a legitimate tenant, a lease contract between the defendant and C is another creditor.