배당이의
The judgment of the first instance court is modified as follows.
A. Compulsory auction of the G Real Estate G in the Daejeon District Court (H(du),
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. From 8th of the judgment of the first instance to 11th of 11th of 200 to 7th of 10th of 200 to be added and used.
“The Government”
B. In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of entry and changes in the evidence (including numbers) Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, 13 through 16 (including judgment as to the claim against Defendant B, the claims on the No. 1 and the No. 2 Deed are false in light of the following facts and circumstances.
It is difficult to view this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion as being included in the secured claim of the right to collateral security of this case.
① The Fairness No. 1 of this case, which was 37,500,000 won on August 1, 2013, was drafted by Defendant B to J for a long time after remitting the amount of KRW 37,500,000 to Defendant J on April 1, 2013, as well as KRW 10,000 on April 5, 2013, and KRW 17,50,000 on April 15, 2013. It is possible to specify the amount of KRW 37,50,000 out of the remitted money.
In addition, on April 22, 2014, the 2nd process document of this case was prepared by the time when Defendant B remitted the amount of KRW 30,000,000 on April 17, 2014 to S, and KRW 9,950,000 on April 18, 2014, and the J remitted the amount of KRW 50,00,000 on April 22, 2014 to S.
In light of the financial transaction relationship between Defendant B and J, etc. around the time of the preparation of each of the instant process deeds, there are extenuating circumstances where the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff are clear and acceptable to deny the contents of each of the instant process certificates, which are documents as a disposition.
It is insufficient to see that there is no particular circumstance to reject the probative value of each of the certificates of fairness in this case.
② On February 28, 2020, the J did not report Defendant D, E, and F as rehabilitation claims while filing an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures (Seoul District Court Decision 2020Dah 4685, Daejeon District Court Decision 2020) on February 28, 202.