배당이의
1. The Intervenor’s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.
purport.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, with the exception that "Additional Determination" is added to the first copy of the part concerning "..." of the first judgment of the court of first instance, "Plaintiff A" is added to "Plaintiff A", and the fourth 11 of the first 3th 3th 11, "Review," is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, even if the plaintiff's assertion is considered as the cause of the extinguishment of the secured claim," and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution also conforms to the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In a case where the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and in a case where the plaintiff claims that the claim is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy or extinguished
(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007, etc.). In addition, the right to collateral security is a mortgage established by setting only the maximum amount of the obligation to be secured, and reserving the confirmation of the obligation in the future. Since it is a security right established for securing a certain limit in a settlement term for the future several unspecified claims arising from a continuous business relationship, there must be a legal act establishing the right to collateral security, separate from the act of establishing the right to collateral security, and the burden of proving the existence of a legal act establishing the right to collateral security at the time of establishment of the right to collateral security exists.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da72070, Dec. 24, 2009). Examining the foregoing legal principles in light of the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the establishment registration of the creation of the root of this case is the F’s account.