배당이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the judgment regarding this part of the underlying facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “1. Basic Facts”) in addition to the dismissal of “2016. 26. 6. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance” as “20. 6. 6. 6. 6. 3. 3. 3. 3. 1. ... ... ...”
2. Following the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the amount of dividends to the Defendants out of the instant dividend table should be deleted. The said dividend amount should be distributed to the Plaintiff.
① There is no fact that the Defendants’ claim for each of the goods payment against the non-party corporations was made by falsity for the purpose of evading compulsory execution against the right to claim for recovery of the instant deposit.
② The non-party corporation borrowed a total of KRW 8,580,000,000 from H and deposited it as deposit money for tidal bank.
However, since the defendants jointly and severally guaranteed some of the above loans, the above deposit money can be deemed to have been actually lent by the defendants to the non-party corporation for the purpose of the deposit money.
Therefore, the defendants cannot claim the effect of seizure or provisional seizure against the claims for collection of the amount of deposit from sea in relation to the plaintiff, who is the provisional seizure creditor.
(3) The Defendants’ demand for distribution is practically intended to return the invested amount and is an act of evading compulsory execution against the right to claim the recovery of the deposit money of this case by the non-party corporation. Therefore, it is not permissible as a juristic act against social order.
3. Judgment as to the plaintiff's assertion that the defendants' claim for the price of goods is false
A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following: (a) the existence of the claim for the price of goods against the non-party corporation of the defendant B; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1; and (c) Eul evidence Nos. 1, 6, 8, 9, 10, 17, and 33.
① Defendant B entered into a credit transaction agreement with a non-party corporation since 201.