beta
Text
1. The Seoul Northern District Court D and E (Dual) Real Estate Compulsory Auction case shall be prepared on December 6, 2013 by the above court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 24, 2012, the Seoul Northern District Court D, on December 28, 2012, the procedure for compulsory auction of real estate as D, and the procedure for the auction of real estate as E, the Seoul Northern District Court E, Seoul Northern District Court on December 28, 2012, upon a creditor's application for compulsory auction and the application for voluntary auction of the National Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "National Bank"), which is a collateral security (hereinafter "National Bank"), for the instant apartment building owned by G.
B. In the above auction procedure, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 543,978,190 to be distributed to Defendant A, B, and C, each of which was distributed to the small lessee with the first priority, the amount of KRW 16,00,000,00 to be distributed to Defendant A, B, and C, each of which was distributed to the small lessee with the second priority, and the second priority of KRW 1,337,020 to Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, a person holding the attachment right, and KRW 494,641,170 to the transferee of the national bank, a senior
C. On December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the entire amount distributed by the Defendants.
[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of parties’ assertion;
A. The Defendants are the most lessee who entered into a false contract with G to abuse the right of priority repayment of small-sum lessee prior to the commencement of an auction. Even if the Defendants were not the most lessee, the Defendants’ lease agreement constitutes a fraudulent act that establishes the right of priority repayment with respect to the instant apartment, which is the only property in excess of the obligor G, and thus, the Defendants’ distribution of dividends is unreasonable.
B. The defendants' apartment complex of this case is divided into three parts that enable 8 households to live independently, and leased to the defendants. Defendant C is a person who has no personal relationship with G, and the defendants actually paid the lease deposit and resided with resident registration.