beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In the case of an auction of real estate as stated in the purport of the claim, this Court, on February 14, 2019, prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) as follows, in allocating the remaining KRW 838,879,747, which deducts the enforcement cost from the proceeds of sale of the real estate sold (E and F).
The applicant and the mortgagee-mortgage 30,000, 170, 170, 278,570, 270, 570, 278, 570, 272, 361, 400, 361, 361, and 2, Defendant 400, 532, and 361, and 3,000, 120,000, and 170,000,000, and 4 I70,000,000, and 218,068,816, which are the mortgagee-mortgage 3, and 3,000,000, and 4 I70,000,000, and 218,068,816
B. In the foregoing case, the Plaintiff asserted that the lease deposit amount of KRW 25 million was paid to the above-sale real estate building, and the Plaintiff demanded a distribution. However, when the distribution was excluded from the dividend, the Plaintiff’s agent appeared on the date of distribution on February 14, 2019 and raised an objection against KRW 25 million out of the dividend amount against the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on February 18, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and the plaintiff's judgment on this issue were excluded from dividends in spite of being a lessee with preferential right to payment under the Housing Lease Protection Act or the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. Thus, the amount of dividends to the defendant should be reduced to KRW 375,532,361 among the distribution schedule of this case, and the amount of dividends to the defendant should be corrected to pay KRW 25 million to the plaintiff.
In this regard, the defendant has a defense against the purport that he should have raised an objection against the lower-ranking mortgagee, so in a case where the creditor raised an objection against the other creditors who received the distribution, that is, the creditor who would not have received the distribution if he had accepted the plaintiff's objection from the beginning and prepared the distribution schedule, that is, the creditor who would not have received the distribution if he had made the distribution schedule.