logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.01.17 2016가단9932
배당이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 8, 2015, 201, the building on the ground (hereinafter “instant building”) outside E-gu, Sungnam-si was owned by F. The building was sold on February 24, 2016.

B. In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff asserted that F leased KRW 204 of the instant building KRW 70,000,000 among the instant building, and demanded dividends to be excluded. However, the instant distribution schedule was formulated in order to distribute KRW 142,691,554 to the Defendant, the pledgee of the instant building, who was the pledgee of the right to collateral security established on April 1, 2015 by the court No. 15845, Apr. 1, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as the “mortgage of this case”) C.

On April 22, 2016, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 70,000,000 out of the Defendant’s dividend amount, and filed the instant lawsuit on April 29, 2016.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, Gap’s 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff, the cause of the claim, is the creditor of F, and was the creditor of F. F. On August 18, 2014, converted the debt KRW 70,000,000 from F to F to the deposit, and entered into a lease contract with respect to 204 among the instant buildings, and made a move-in report on February 13, 2015, made a move-in report on the same date, obtained the fixed date, and was actually occupied on May 10, 2015.

Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to receive dividends because he is a tenant with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

On the other hand, the Defendant and the Defendant, G and F, the mortgagee of the instant case, in collusion with and with the intent to harm the Plaintiff, set up a false right to collateral security and the right to collateral security, even though they did not have any actual obligation, and thus, the Defendant

(False Indication, Fraudulent Claim). (b)

The plaintiff is opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

arrow