배당이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasons for the statement in this part of the basic facts are as stated in the "1. Basic Facts" among the judgment of the court of first instance, and they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion 1) was concluded to secure the obligation of KRW 315 million to E of the instant association. The registration of the establishment of the instant chonsegwon is valid only within the scope of KRW 315 million, and the part in excess thereof is the registration of invalidation of cause. The contract to establish the instant chonsegwon is not null and void (the Plaintiff’s right to lease on a deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit deposit contract in the first instance court was concluded with E, which is only the nominal lender, who is not the actual creditor, in order to secure the obligation of KRW 315 million to the instant association and the Plaintiff’s office of attorney-at-law, and thus, is null and void. However, in the first instance trial, the Plaintiff arranged the aforementioned assertion as above.
[2] In other words, the right to lease on a deposit basis is established to establish the payment of a deposit basis, and the actual amount of the right to lease on a deposit basis is merely KRW 315 million and the registration of the portion in excess is null and void. Therefore, the subsequent registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis is null and void in the part exceeding the above KRW 315 million among the defendant's right to lease on a deposit basis. Ultimately, the part exceeding the above KRW 315 million among the defendant's right to lease on a deposit basis (or KRW 50 million which is a loan based on a right to lease on a deposit basis) is null and void, and the defendant has no right to receive dividends exceeding the above KRW 315 million (or KRW 50 million). Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled to receive dividends exceeding KRW 74,506,780,000 against the defendant in the distribution table of this case, and KRW 350,500,000,000,000 won against the plaintiff, which should be 1.5.7.