배당이의
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendants, from August 2006 to June 2010, borrowed a total of KRW 48.4 billion to M Co., Ltd.: KRW 6 billion; KRW 3.4 billion; KRW D3.4 billion; KRW 6.6 billion; KRW 5.6 billion; Defendant Co., Ltd.; KRW 8 billion; KRW H6 billion; KRW 6.6 billion; Defendant J. H6 billion; KRW 6 billion; Defendant J. J. 6 billion; KRW 6.6 billion; and Defendant J. 6 billion; and KRW 1.4 billion; and Defendant N. (hereinafter referred to as “N”).
The above loans were jointly and severally guaranteed by the Defendants. On the other hand, N from March 2003, the P Urban Development Project Association established to promote an urban development project of Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S. O.O. (hereinafter “P Association”).
() After concluding an entrustment contract with regard to the aforesaid urban development project, the said urban development project has been implemented. However, on July 22, 2011, the Defendants, as joint and several surety creditors of N, by subrogation of N on behalf of N, shall be deemed as “13,353,54,186 won out of N’s claim for compensation for losses or claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against N,” and as “the right to use, profit from, and dispose of the land scheduled for development recompense within the relevant urban development project zone of the P association,” the Defendants received a provisional attachment order regarding “the right to use, profit, and dispose of the land scheduled for development recompense in the relevant urban development project zone of the P association” (Ulsan District Court 2
(2) On April 27, 2012, the foregoing provisional attachment ruling was served on the PFF on July 26, 201. (2) In order to cancel the enforcement of provisional attachment No. 1 on April 27, 2012, the PFF deposited the amount of KRW 13,353,544,186 in the Ulsan District Court depository (Ulsan District Court Decision 2012No. 1771; hereinafter “PF’s right to claim recovery of the deposit money”) and accordingly, received a decision to cancel the enforcement of the provisional attachment on April 27, 2012.
(Ulsan District Court 2012Kala409). (b)
The Defendants’ title of enforcement, seizure and collection order of the Defendants, 1 of the collection order, was provisionally seized on June 29, 201.