beta
Text
1. The execution court prepared as of June 8, 2017 with respect to the case of compulsory auction B real estate in the Jeonju District Court and Eup.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 19, 2005, the Defendant concluded a contract to establish a right to collateral security with the Defendant, the maximum debt amount of which is 30,000,000 with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the Defendant on April 19, 2005, and completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) under the name of the Defendant, the Jeonju District Court No. 10240, Apr. 20, 2005.
B. On October 11, 2016, the procedure for compulsory auction of the instant real estate was commenced as Jeonju District Court’s Jeonju District Court’s branch support B, and the Plaintiff participated in the said auction procedure and made a demand for distribution of the amount of KRW 398,079,471 against C, for which the payment order was finalized by the Jeonju District Court’s 2010 tea 285 payment order.
C. On June 8, 2017, the executing court distributed the amount of KRW 30 million out of KRW 72,579,308 to the Defendant, a second-class mortgagee, who is a general creditor, and KRW 16,202,485 to the Plaintiff, a general creditor.
[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserts that the cause of the claim in this case is as follows.
C In light of the fact that the Defendant’s wife and did not exercise the instant right to collateral security for a long time, the instant right to collateral security is null and void.
Even if it is not so, since the secured claim became extinct due to the completion of prescription, the dividend of this case against the defendant is illegal.
In regard to this, the Defendant lent KRW 30 million to C over several times, and the Defendant received KRW 1 to 500,000 from C one year to 1 to 500,000 as interest, and the Defendant claimed that the claim against C is not extinguished by prescription.
3. Determination
A. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution is in general civil procedure.