배당이의
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument of the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified, considering the evidence submitted to the court of first instance.
Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment under the following paragraph (2).
2. The addition;
A. The Defendant, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, is in the position of being recognized as a creditor entitled to receive a dividend even if the Defendant did not demand a distribution in the Daegu District Court Young-gu C auction procedure for Younguk support, and applied for double auction in the same court.
Therefore, even if the contract of this case was revoked by fraudulent act, since the defendant applied for a double auction in the position of the creditor entitled to receive a dividend, it shall be deemed that the defendant is in the same position as having made a demand for distribution prior to the completion of the auction procedure.
B. Determination 1) Where an auction court implements additional dividends, a creditor entitled to dividends shall be a creditor who has lawfully demanded an auction procedure. However, even though a mortgagee submitted a claim statement to an auction court as a mortgagee, when the mortgage contract was revoked as a fraudulent act (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da33069, Sept. 24, 2002), it cannot be deemed a lawful demand for distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da33069, Sept. 24, 2002). When another request for a compulsory auction is made with respect to the real estate for which the decision to commence an auction procedure has already been made, the court shall re-decision to commence the auction procedure, and in such a case, the creditor who has filed an application for double auction after the completion of the decision to commence the auction procedure shall not receive dividends based on the seizure (see Article 87(1) of the Civil Execution Act) (see Supreme Court Order 148 subparag. 1). 24, 2016).