beta
Text
1. It was drawn up by the High Government District Court on November 29, 2018 with respect to the auction case of D's real estate rental.
Reasons
1. Circumstances leading to the dispute of this case;
(a) Down-si;
E. F, G’s land, F, general steel structure, and other two-story buildings on the G ground (hereinafter “instant building”) were owned by H. The instant building was owned by H.
B. On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 190,000,000 to H, and KRW 280,000,00 on June 28, 2013, and H completed the registration of creation of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 247,00,000 on May 31, 2013 in the future of the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of creation of a mortgage with the maximum debt amount of KRW 364,00,00 on June 28, 2013, respectively.
C. On July 4, 2017, the Plaintiff applied for a voluntary auction on the instant real estate, and on July 5, 2017, the voluntary auction procedure commenced.
(hereinafter referred to as the "auction of this case")
D. At the instant auction, the Defendant asserted that there exists a claim for the return of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 15,000,000, and applied for distribution, and the said court, on November 29, 2018, prepared a distribution schedule (Evidence A 3; hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the Plaintiff, the Defendant, etc. on the date of distribution as follows:
Amount of a party’s claim (unit: unit) The amount of a dividend (unit of won: Defendant 7,500,500,000,000, 1,161,7901,161,790, 601, and 790, 601,849, 8030, 481, 215, and 915, i.e., source of a dividend (unit of won)
D. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff stated that he/she raised an objection to the total amount of dividends against the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserted by the parties is the so-called tenant with only the external appearance of the lease, or a person who fails to meet the opposing power and preferential right to payment as prescribed by the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter "Commercial Building Lease Protection Act"), and thus, the distribution schedule of this case should be corrected by eliminating the amount of distribution to the defendant and distributing it to the plaintiff.