배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage to the Plaintiff, a debtor D and a mortgagee, with respect to the land size of 377 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by D, Jin-gu, Jindong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant real estate”).
Accordingly, the defendant, who had been the husband of D, completed provisional attachment registration upon the decision of provisional attachment 2014 businesshap5 (hereinafter "provisional attachment of this case"), where the right to claim property division due to divorce on March 10, 2014 (the claim amounting to 350,000,000 won) on the real estate owned D, including the instant real estate, is the preserved right (the claim amounting to 350,00,000).
On July 8, 2015, on the date of public auction of the instant real estate C in the Changwon District Court C real estate auction procedure, a distribution schedule was prepared to distribute each amount of KRW 13,764,688 to the Defendant (distribution ranking 3) and KRW 18,609,242 to the Plaintiff (distribution ranking 3).
The Defendant filed a lawsuit against D seeking divorce and division of property, etc. as the Changwon District Court 2014Dhap5051, and the conciliation was concluded on December 16, 2014, including divorce between the Defendant and D, and D paid KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant as a division of property.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant conciliation”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, without intention to divorce with D, obtained the decision of provisional seizure of this case where the right to claim division of property is the right to be preserved, by pretending to divorce and making a false claim for division of property as the right to be preserved. As such, it
In the case of divorce with D, etc., the defendant has the obligation to withdraw the application for provisional seizure of this case and to cancel its execution.
Therefore, it is unreasonable to pay dividends to the defendant based on the provisional seizure of this case.
B. First of all, the defendant and D have no intention to divorce.