logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.16 2015가단16722
배당이의
Text

1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The right to collateral security was owned by Nonparty D. C 2114 Dong-dong 2001 on October 6, 2011. As to the above real estate, the right to collateral security was established at KRW 342,00,000 on the maximum debt amount under Defendant’s name.

B. Voluntary auction procedure was commenced as to the above real estate B with the Ji Government District Court Goyang Branch B, and the plaintiff filed an application for a report on the right and a demand for distribution as a lessee.

C. In the above procedure, the above court excluded the Plaintiff from the dividend on June 5, 2015, and distributed KRW 330,914,536 to the Defendant. The Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 20,00,000 out of the Defendant’s dividend amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 9, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, although the plaintiff is a legitimate tenant subject to protection under the Housing Lease Protection Act, who entered into a lease agreement with D as to the real estate of this case and paid a deposit of KRW 20,000,000,000, the distribution schedule of this case excluding the plaintiff's dividends is unfair, and that the above KRW 20,000 should be distributed to the plaintiff.

3. The legislative purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to ensure the stability of the residential life of citizens by prescribing special cases concerning residential buildings (Article 1). Article 8(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that the lessee may be paid a certain amount of the deposit in preference to other secured creditors. In the case of small lessee, even if the deposit is small amount, it is a large amount of the deposit, and thus, it is reasonable to guarantee the recovery of the deposit even if it harms the status of other secured creditors. Therefore, considering such legislative purpose and purpose of the system, it is an exception to the general provisions of the Civil Act.

arrow