(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.10.14 2015가단16181

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.10.14 2015가단16181

배당이의

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2012, C created the right to collateral security, which was loaned KRW 292,00,000 from the Plaintiff, with respect to the instant real estate owned by C and D, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 379,60,00,00, and D jointly and severally guaranteed the said obligation against the Plaintiff.

B. On April 29, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between C and D with respect to the instant real estate, with the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,300,00 (Additional tax separately), the lease agreement between June 28, 2013 and June 27, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and received the move-in report and the fixed date on June 27, 2013.

C. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for the commencement of voluntary auction with the Seoul Southern District Court B regarding the instant real estate, and the auction procedure was conducted on May 27, 2014.

In the preparation of a distribution schedule, on May 23, 2014, the said court made a distribution schedule of KRW 8,823,00 as a small lessee and distributed KRW 306,39,975 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

The plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the total amount of the defendant's dividends.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The plaintiff asserts that, around the other hand, the plaintiff argued that, since the defendant entered into a false lease agreement on the real estate of this case in order to receive a small amount lease deposit, it shall not be protected under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and that the conclusion of the lease agreement of this case should be revoked as a fraudulent act detrimental to the above debtor's creditor, it is unfair that the distribution schedule of this case prepared to distribute the amount of small amount deposit to the defendant, and that the above dividends should be distributed to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment as to the primary claim (whether or not the principal tenant is the tenant).

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.02 2015가단70139

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.02 2015가단71552

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.04.22 2015가단19783

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.09.30 2015가단89782

-인천지방법원 2015.10.02 2014가단241008