배당이의 등
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against D’s claims against D (hereinafter “instant claims”) with Nonparty D as the debtor, Nonparty E as the third debtor, and with the claimed amount of KRW 100,000,000,00, and received a decision thereon.
B. Meanwhile, Defendant A was issued a collection order for the attachment and collection of the instant claim amounting to KRW 200,000,000 with the executory bond of promissory note No. 2014,5083 with respect to the instant claim under D as the mother of D, and with the executory bond of promissory note No. 2014,00.
In addition, Defendant B was issued a collection order for the claim of this case as the execution bond in accordance with D's payment order decision against D as to the claim of this case as the defendant's type of sale, and as to the claim of this case, the seizure and collection order for the claim of this case was issued.
Meanwhile, Nonparty New Card Co., Ltd was issued a provisional attachment order with the amount of credit amount of KRW 8,667,508 as 2014Kadan4428.
C. On March 25, 2015, E deposited KRW 100,00,00 as Suwon District Court No. 201840 with respect to the instant claim, and on March 25, 2015, in the case of C dividend procedure with respect to the said deposit, E drafted a distribution schedule to distribute each of the instant claim to the Plaintiff, according to the ratio of the amount of claim, KRW 22,749,501, Defendant A, KRW 45,49,000, and KRW 29,574,351 to Defendant B (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. In light of the relation between D and the Defendants, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants’ claim is the most valuable claim, and thus, the instant distribution schedule recognizing the Defendants’ dividend amount is unreasonable, and seek to delete the Defendants’ dividend amount and distribute it to the Plaintiff.
As to this, Defendant A lent a total of KRW 259,01,094 to D from 2009 to 2014, but subject to compulsory execution with a notarial deed for KRW 200,000,000 among them, Defendant B was subject to compulsory execution from August 21, 2009.
8.25.