(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.16 2015가단70467

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.16 2015가단70467

배당이의

Text

1. All of the main and ancillary claims of this case are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From October 25, 2005 to 207, the New Bank Co., Ltd. loaned 480,000,000 won to Nonparty C with a total of 480,000 won. To secure this, it set the right to collateral security equivalent to the maximum debt amount of 420,000,000 won and the right to collateral security equivalent to the maximum debt amount of 60,000,000 won on June 24, 2005 with respect to the D apartment Nos. 1003, 100,000 (hereinafter “the instant real property”).

B. On October 5, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on a deposit of KRW 20,000 as to one column among the instant real estate, and completed the move-in report and the fixed date on October 31, 2012.

C. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the claim against C by the new bank with respect to the instant real estate in progress with the auction procedure, filed an application for the commencement of voluntary auction with the Goyang-gu District Court Goyang-dong B, and the auction procedure was conducted on November 20, 2013.

The defendant filed a demand for distribution and a report on the right as a lessee in the above procedure.

The above court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute to the defendant the amount of KRW 16,00,000 corresponding to the small amount deposit, and distribute the remaining amount of KRW 378,878,236 except for the pertinent tax to the defendant.

Accordingly, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection to the full amount of the defendant's dividend.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff primarily asserts that the defendant is the most lessee who is unable to obtain the protection stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act. At the time of entering into the instant lease agreement, C was in excess of his/her obligation, and at the same time, the establishment of the right of lease acknowledged as the right of preferential payment under the Housing Lease Protection Act and the act of establishing

참조조문

-주택임대차보호법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.16 2015가단4811

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.07.17 2014가단37364

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.30 2014가단70699

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.06.12 2014가단67006

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.05.01 2014가단68382