잉여금반환
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. A. A medical corporation C (hereinafter “the medical corporation of the instant medical foundation”) filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016 Gohap1016, around June 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”). A decision on June 28, 2016 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”).
B. Prior to the above rehabilitation procedure, D Co., Ltd. had a claim of KRW 346,232,155 for the instant medical foundation (hereinafter “instant claim”).
around 2015, the Defendant received a collection order against the Defendant’s debt collection amounting to KRW 330,471,882, which was the sum of KRW 2015,015, 1038 and 2015, 12101 (hereinafter “Defendant’s debt collection amount”) with respect to the instant claim. The instant medical foundation entered the said collection amount in the creditor list in the rehabilitation procedure of this case.
C. On the other hand, around July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order from the Sungwon District Court Branch 2016TTY 2016TTY 6580, 59,317,072 (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s debt collection order”) with respect to the instant claim, and accordingly, reported the said collection amount in the instant rehabilitation procedure around August 12, 2016.
In the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the medical foundation of this case decided the full amount of the defendant's claims according to the order of the report, and decided the plaintiff's claims within the limit of 15,760,273 won, which is the remaining claims of the seizure.
The rehabilitation procedure of this case was authorized by the rehabilitation plan on September 21, 2017, and the medical foundation of this case repaid KRW 330,471,882 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 15,760,273 to the Defendant, respectively, according to the above father, around October 2017.
E. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for the final claim inspection judgment with the Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016da2884 with respect to the foregoing co-appellant, but was dismissed on December 20, 2017 on the ground that there was no benefit of protection of rights, and the same court 2018Gadan20, which raised an objection thereto, is the final claim inspection judgment against the obligee.