logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.11.19 2015나304936
배당이의
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On January 1, 2015, the Daegu District Court A with respect to A real estate auction case.

Reasons

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The court's explanation of this part of the facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. In the auction procedure to exercise a judgment on the cause of the claim, where the applicant creditor applied for auction by stating only a part of the secured debt in the amount of the claim as the claim amount, the applicant creditor shall be determined to the extent of the claim amount stated in the auction procedure, unless there are other special circumstances, and the claim amount shall not be extended by a request creditor with regard to an extension of claim amount or a method of submitting a claim statement, etc., separate from that where the applicant creditor may apply for double auction.

(see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da495, Feb. 28, 1997; 201Da65396, Dec. 8, 201). In addition, in an auction procedure for the enforcement of a right to collateral security, an applicant creditor may alter the claim by adding specific secured claims to other claims, or exchanging the initial secured claims with other claims, if the other claims exist as the secured claims of the right to collateral security (if the amount of the claim claimed after the change exceeds the amount of the claims stated in the application for an auction, it shall not be apportioned to the excess amount). The change in the claim claims should be determined by objectively and reasonably interpreting the intent expressed in the auction court.

Supreme Court Decision 96Da39479 delivered on July 10, 1998

arrow