Seoul Central District Court 2010 Gohap128875 ( October 23, 2011)

It is judged to be the most lessee rather than the lessee who actually entered into a lease contract.

After completing a declaration of transfer of real estate upon delivery by concluding a lease contract, it is argued that the right to preferential payment is entitled to be distributed as the lessee because the lease deposit was paid with a fixed date, but it is judged that the lessee is the most lessee who created only the appearance of the lease contract, such as the lease contract, rather than the lessee

2011Na64470 Demurrer against distribution

XX

Korea

Intervenor joining the Defendant

One other than the Credit Guarantee Fund

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Kahap128875 Decided June 23, 2011

March 9, 2012

March 23, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed;

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

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff shall be revoked. With respect to the case of auction of real estate (Seoul Central District Court 2010tagi 994), with respect to the dividend amount against the plaintiff among the dividend table prepared by the above court on December 9, 2010, the amount of dividend to the plaintiff shall be KRW 000, and KRW 000,000,000, respectively.

1. Basic facts

"가. 서울 강남구 XX동 632 XX파크 XX동 제0000호(이하 '이 사건 부동산'이라 한다)에 관하여 2006. 7. 31. 김AA 앞으로 소유권이전등기가 경료되었고, 같은날 주식회사 QQ은행 앞으로 채권최고액 000원, 채무자 김AA로 하는 내용의 근저당권설정등기가 경료되었다.", "나. 김AA는 2009. 2. 12. 자신이 대표이사로 있던 OO건설 주식회사(이하OO건설'이라 한다)와 사이에 이 사건 부동산을 포함한 자신 소유의 부동산을 OO건설에 증여하되 OO건설이 김AA에 대한 채무를 면제하여 주는 내용의 계약을 체결하고, 2009. 3. 13. 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 OO건설 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 주었다.",다. OO건설은 2009. 4. 16. 수원지방법원 2009회합19호로 회생절차가 개시되었는 데, OO건설의 관리인은 김AA와 OO건설 사이의 위 증여계약 및 채무변제에 대하여 2009. 8. 21. 김AA를 상대로 부인청구의 소(수원지방법원 2009회기10)를 제기하였다. 이에 수원지방법원은 2010. 1. 28. '위 증여계약 및 채무변제를 각 부인하고, 김BB는 OO건설로부터 이 사건 부동산 등에 관하여 2009. 3. 13. 마친 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 인수하라'는 결정을 하였으며, 위 결정은 2010. 2. 8. 그대로 확정되었다.

라. 주식회사 QQ은행은 김AA가 위 가.항 기재 근저당권에 의하여 담보되는 채무를 변제하지 아니하자 2010. 4.경 서울중앙지방법원 2010타경9994호로 임의경매신청을 하였다. 이에 위 법원은 2010. 4. 7. 임의경매개시결정을 한 다음 그 경매절차(이하 '이 사건 경매절차'라 한다)를 진행하였는데, 피고 산하 동안양세무서장은 2010. 5. 3. 위 법원에 OO건설에 대한 법인세 등 체납세액 합계 00,000,000,000원에 대한 교부청구를 하였고, 원고는 2010. 6. 8. 이 사건 부동산을 김AA로부터 임차하였다고 주장하면서 보증금 000원에 대한 권리신고 및 배당요구를 하였다.

E. On July 2, 2010, in the process of the instant auction procedure, the ownership transfer registration made in the name of O Construction on the instant real estate was cancelled in accordance with the decision of Suwon District Court 2009No. 10.

바. 이 사건 부동산이 2010. 11. 18. 최고가매수신고인인 김CC, 임DD에게 매각되자, 서울중앙지방법원은 2010. 12. 9. 배당기일을 열어 매각대금에서 집행비용 등을 공제한 금 000원을 실제 배당할 금액으로 확정한 다음, 1순위로 근저당권자인 주식회사 QQ은행에게 000원을, 2순위로 교부권자인 피고(소관 동안양세무서)에게 금 000원을 각 배당하고, 원고를 배당에서 제외하였다. 원고는 위 배당기일에 출석하여 피고에 대한 배당금 전액에 대하여 이의를 제기하였고, 위 배당기일로부터 7일 이내인 2010. 12. 15. 이 사건 소를 제기하였다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in evidence 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

1) On January 25, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with KimA to provide a lease deposit of KRW 000 with respect to the instant real estate, and from March 14, 2009 to March 13, 201, and paid KRW 000 on the date of the contract. The Plaintiff was declared to transfer the instant real estate from KimA on July 21, 2009, after receiving a declaration of transfer from the said lease agreement, and received a fixed date as of August 27, 2009, and paid KRW 00 as the lease deposit to KimA from August 27, 2009 to August 31, 201.

2) However, as a manager of OConstruction exercises the right to set aside against a gift contract made on February 12, 2009, ownership of the instant real estate was naturally returned to KimA on February 8, 2010 when the decision to accept a claim for denial was confirmed at least on November 10, 2009, when a copy of the application for denial was delivered to KimA, or on February 8, 2010, when the decision to accept a claim for denial became final and conclusive, which was when the copy of the application for denial was delivered to KimA, and the head of both tax offices have made a claim for delivery to the defendant on May 3, 2010, the said claim for delivery was illegal and void as it is against the property of a third party, not the delinquent taxpayer. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has the right to receive the total amount distributed to

B. Determination

According to the evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5-1 through 4, the Plaintiff and KimA made a move-in report with the instant real estate on July 21, 2009, and received a fixed date as of August 27, 2009, the Plaintiff and KimA from the lease deposit account (the contract deposit amount of KRW 000 on the date of the contract, and the balance of KRW 000 on the date of the contract) and the lease term of March 14, 2009 to March 13, 201, the lease contract (Evidence No. 3) with the contents that the lease period of March 14, 2009 would be from March 14, 2009 to March 13, 201. The Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff received the fixed date as of August 27, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred the money to the deposit account of the EA from August 27, 2009 to August 30, 2009.

However, considering the above basic facts and the fact that Gap, 5-1, 2, 3, and 5-1, 6-2, 7-2, and 9-2, and each of the following circumstances, which can be known by adding the whole purport of pleadings, i.e., the down payment is 00 won even though the lease deposit of this case was 00 won, and even if the plaintiff's assertion was made, it is difficult to easily obtain the real estate of this case from Kim 21, 2009, in light of the empirical rule because it was delivered to the above 0-1, 2, 3, and 5-2, 1, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 3,000, 2,000, 3,000,000, 2,000,000 won, and 3,000,00,000,00.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion based on the premise that the plaintiff is a lessee who entered into a lease agreement with KimA is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.