배당이의
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, and the part of “3. judgment” in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. The burden of proving the grounds for objection to a distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution is also in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In the event that 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 where the plaintiff claims that the claim is null and void as a false declaration or extinguished as a result of repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the grounds for disability or extinguishment, but it is reasonable to consider such circumstances in determining whether the defendant's assertion and the contents of evidence as to the establishment of the claim are false
(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da27998 Decided July 24, 2008, and 2013Da37555 Decided September 13, 2013). Therefore, according to the following: (a) as to whether the Defendant’s loan credit against D constitutes the most recent claim, (b) as to whether the Defendant’s loan credit constitutes the most recent claim; (c) as to the Defendant’s testimony by the witness witness D, D borrowed KRW 200 million from the Defendant on October 1, 2007, and repaid the loan by October 1, 2009; and (d) as to the interest payment by the first day of each month, D prepared to the Defendant a certificate of the loan that the Defendant is to be paid to the Defendant on the first day of each month; and (b) as to D, at the second day of the trial of the party, D bears the obligation equivalent to the principal amount of KRW 200 million on the Defendant.
However, the above facts are examined as follows: Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-3, and the whole purport of the pleading is examined.