배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence No. 3, No. 4, No. 1, and No. 2 as evidence of fact-finding.
From January 22, 2016 to March 27, 2017, the Plaintiff, as the representative director of the Defendant, embezzled the above money by account transfer from the Defendant’s deposit account to the Plaintiff’s deposit account on March 13, 2017.
B. Accordingly, in order to obtain a refund of KRW 106,950,000, which is the amount of the said embezzlement, the Defendant received the Daejeon District Court’s order of provisional attachment No. 2018Kadan3169, Seosan-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Plaintiff registered as the owner, with respect to detached houses with the size of 98 square meters and the second floor thereof, registered as the owner.
In addition, on June 10, 2020, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff claiming the return of the unrepaid embezzlement amount (Sasan Branch of the Daejeon District Court 2018da5074(s) and sentenced on June 10, 2020 to the effect that "the plaintiff shall pay to the defendant the amount of KRW 106,950,000 and its delay damages."
C. On November 14, 2019, the auction court additionally distributes 58,662,514 won to the creditor E of the first-class collective security right, 25,959,034 won to the creditor of the second-class collective security right, 20,000 won to the creditor of the second-class collective security right, 168,290 won to the third-class debtor of the third-class collective security right, and 12,535,190 won to the defendant of the fourth-class provisional attachment right. D.
In addition, in the auction procedure of this case, the plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount of the defendant's dividends, and thereafter filed the lawsuit of this case.
2. The plaintiff asserts that, since the plaintiff did not embezzled the amount of money of the defendant and there is no claim for provisional seizure, the defendant cannot receive dividends in the auction procedure of this case.
In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution of burden of proof in general civil procedure.