beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Fact-finding;
A. This court opened a date of distribution on November 21, 2017 at the auction of the real estate B commenced on January 6, 2017 with respect to the building 54.18 square meters of reinforced concrete structure, 102, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-si, which was owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and distributed 40,130 won out of 96,897,620 won to Yangyang-gu, a person holding the right to deliver (the pertinent tax), and distributed 95,70,00 won to the Defendant, who was a mortgagee (the maximum amount of claims is KRW 95,70,000,000, and the date of receipt of registration, was March 27, 2014), and the Plaintiff appeared in the order of distribution on the remaining amount within 300,000 won, among the dividends of this case, and the Plaintiff appeared in the order of 300,000 won.
B. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff filed an application for demand for distribution with this court on January 25, 2017, and filed a claim for distribution with C on December 1, 2015, by asserting that the Plaintiff is a small-sum lessee who completed a move-in report on the resident registration on December 3, 2015, after concluding a lease agreement with C on December 1, 2015, and paying the lease deposit amount of KRW 13 million. However, the Plaintiff failed to actually receive dividends.
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment as to the cause of the claim
A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion is a debtor C’s father, the Plaintiff had concluded a lease agreement with respect to the instant real estate on December 1, 2015 while the Plaintiff resided in another place after divorce.
Since lineal ascendants and descendants are the relationship, the security deposit for lease was set at KRW 13 million which was lower than the market price. In fact, the Plaintiff continued to pay C money for the period from 2012 to 2014, and the Plaintiff delivered C money much more than the security deposit for lease than the above security deposit.