배당이의
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. On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction against D with the Cheongju District Court Decision 2002Da25617, the Plaintiff filed an application for compulsory auction against D’s 202 (hereinafter “instant building”). Cheongju District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction against the instant building (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) on January 21, 2014.
B. As to the building of this case, Defendant A is the voice registry office of Cheongju District Court No. 19649, Sept. 27, 1997; Defendant B is the voice registry office of Cheongju District Court No. 20548, Oct. 10, 1997; and each provisional attachment registration is completed.
C. On July 29, 2014, the Cheongju District Court distributed KRW 1,820,744 to Defendant A, KRW 1,120,458 to Defendant B, and KRW 3,804,286 to the Plaintiff, respectively, on the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendants’ claim is false or is not false from the beginning, and the extinctive prescription has already expired, and thus, the amount of dividends against the Defendants ought to be distributed to the Plaintiff.
B. The judgment of the Defendants is difficult to regard the Defendants’ claims as false claims solely on the grounds that the Defendants failed to perform their compulsory execution until 17 years have passed since the provisional seizure was executed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Article 168 of the Civil Act stipulates provisional seizure as grounds for suspending extinctive prescription as grounds for suspending extinctive prescription is deemed that the creditors exercised their rights by provisional seizure. As such, the interruption of extinctive prescription by provisional seizure continues to exist while the preservation of execution by provisional seizure remains effective.