beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.19 2015가단105281

배당이의

Text

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on February 10, 2015, with respect to the case of Suwon District Court C real estate compulsory auction.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff was filed with the Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap9756 against D, etc. who worked as an auditor for New Consultation from January 26, 2002 to February 23, 2006. On April 22, 2010, “D shall be jointly and severally and severally with the Plaintiff 521,64,370 won from April 7, 2009 to April 22, 2010; “D shall pay damages at a rate of 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and D shall be subject to the Seoul Central District Court 2010Na48372; however, the aforementioned judgment was dismissed as the Seoul High Court 2010Da138163, Apr. 16, 2016.”

On September 23, 2011, the Defendant’s claim against D was sentenced to the Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na48372, supra, that “The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 956,40,00 and KRW 20% per annum from April 7, 2009 to September 23, 2011, and from March 13, 201, the Defendant paid KRW 1,552,74,356 per annum to the Plaintiff.” The judgment became final and conclusive on March 13, 2014.

The Defendant asserted that D had a claim for reimbursement of KRW 215,380,000 against D following the repayment thereof, and filed an application for provisional attachment of real estate with the Suwon District Court 201Kadan100679 on May 23, 2014 with regard to D-owned Suwon-si P and 601 on June 6, 201 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”). The Defendant completed the provisional attachment of real estate (hereinafter “the instant provisional attachment”) with regard to the instant real estate on the same day, for which KRW 215,380,000 is the claimed amount.

The defendant filed a lawsuit against D et al. for the claim for reimbursement by Seoul Southern District Court 2014Kadan227687, but ruled against D et al. on November 28, 2014 on the ground that the defendant's right to indemnity against D et al. does not exist.