(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2017.06.14 2016가합6216

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) 수원지방법원여주지원 2017.06.14 2016가합6216

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 25, 2011, the Suwon District Court rendered a registration of creation of the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security) of the Defendant, the debtor, and the E, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 450,00,00,00 on April 25, 201 with regard to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) owned by the Plaintiff. B. In the auction procedure of the real estate D(Du) real estate, the auction court shall order the seizure authority (the right to collateral security) of KRW 3,471,90,80,80, and KRW 20,000 on April 25, 2011 to the Defendant, the debtor, and the E, the obligor, and the E, the maximum debt amount of KRW 450,000,000 on each of the instant real estate (the right to collateral security (the right to collateral security) to each of the instant real estate) to grant KRW 3,4740,30484, and47,40.

c) The Plaintiff, on the date of the above distribution, has raised an objection to the total amount of dividends to the Defendant on the date of distribution. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, evidence Nos. 1-3 (including each number, if any, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply)

- The purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff received KRW 200 million from the Defendant on January 14, 201 pursuant to the investment agreement, and did not borrow money. The Plaintiff’s loan obligations against the Defendant, which is the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security, did not accrue. Therefore, the registration of establishment of a collateral security of the instant case is invalid because there was no secured debt.

Therefore, from among the instant distribution schedule, 439,894,077 won should be deleted against the Defendant on the premise that the Defendant is a valid mortgagee.

3. The Plaintiff is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure, as well as the burden of proof in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution in a judgment of demurrer against distribution.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2019.11.01 2019가합54794

-수원지방법원 2020.11.11 2019가합19224

-춘천지방법원 속초지원 2018.11.16 2018가단642

-수원지방법원안양지원 2014.10.02 2014가단100793

-서울북부지방법원 2020.01.30 2017가합25844