배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On April 9, 2013, 2013, the defendant received a seizure and collection order against D's right to claim the collection of deposit money from D from D No. 5686 in 2011, by means of a notarial deed of bill No. 410 ( issuer D and par value 10 million won) dated April 9, 2013.
On August 1, 2013, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 117,945,798 to the Plaintiff, who is the provisional seizure authority, and KRW 9,428,643 to the Defendant, respectively.
On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the total amount of dividends against the Defendant.
(Reasons for Recognition: facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, and Eul 2). The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant's claim for the certificate of promissory notes is false because it does not have any money transaction, the distribution against the defendant is improper.
According to the statements in Eul 1, 3-1, and 2 and the witness testimony in Eul 1, 3-1, and 2, the defendant has made a long-term number of monetary transactions with D, and it is recognized that the defendant remitted D money to D on June 30, 201, KRW 200,000 won on January 12, 201, KRW 500,000 on March 16, 201, and KRW 5 million on September 26, 2012, and received money as interest on the said money.
In light of this, it is difficult to view that D has falsely issued a bill of exchange despite the fact that D did not assume the actual obligation against the Defendant.
(Specific in light of the timing and amount of entry and withdrawal, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant did not have any obligation to receive the amount from D merely by summing up the entire details of the deposit and withdrawal since 2005 is not acceptable). Furthermore, the circumstance that D, other than the Defendant, prepared and executed a notarial deed with executory power under Article 32, 33, and 34 of the Han Law Firm Han Law Firm, No. 2013, and E, etc. were to receive dividends in the said distribution procedure is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s claim is false, and there is no other evidence, and even if the Defendant anticipated that the compulsory execution procedure against D will be carried out and received a bill of exchange with the intent to participate therein, it is also difficult