beta
(영문) 청주지방법원영동지원 2016.02.19 2014가단2036

배당이의

Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The auction procedure for corporeal movables (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was in progress with respect to the corporeal movables identified as the possession of Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff’s 101 and 201 for the F Multi-household Housing in the Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, and the District Court No. 2014 and 166, supra, and with the same court No. 2014 and 20166.

B. In the instant auction procedure, an enforcement officer affiliated with the Youngju District Court’s Young-dong Branch (Cheongju District Court) intended to distribute the proceeds of the instant movable property to creditors by consultation, but it was impossible for Defendant C to make a distribution by raising an objection thereto, etc., and deposited KRW 23,197,919 as Cheongju District Court’s Young-dong Branch (262) on November 7, 2014.

C. Accordingly, as a result of the distribution procedure conducted in Youngju District Court Young-dong Branch E, Cheongju District Court, the distribution court prepared the distribution schedule in order of 12,157,020 won, 20 won, and 108,335 won, 129,176 won, and 129,176 won, to Defendant D, the collection authority against Plaintiff B (Cheongju District Court, Youngju District Court, Young-dong Branch, 2014, 921) (the seizure and collection order of claims in the case No. 2014,921, 2014, 2014, 195, 710 won, and 8,593,597 won, to Plaintiff A, the collection authority against Plaintiff B, and the collection authority against Plaintiff B, respectively, (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”).

The Plaintiffs appeared on the date of distribution on December 16, 2014, and stated an objection against the dividend amount of the Defendants, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on December 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 5, 10 to 15, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs’ assertion is not Plaintiff A but Plaintiff B’s ownership. The sale price for the instant movable arising from the instant auction procedure is against Plaintiff A, who is the debtor of the said auction procedure.