배당이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. Basic facts
A. A. Voluntary auction procedure was initiated with respect to the land of 21,995 square meters in Gyeong-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-dong, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) owned by the Defendant to the Changwon District Court Jin-gu, Changwon District Court C.
B. A distribution schedule was formulated with the content that, among the distribution procedures of March 25, 2013 (hereinafter “instant distribution procedures”), the amount to be actually distributed in KRW 23,850 among KRW 44,984,669, the amount to be distributed to the Defendant, the owner of which is the first creditor, KRW 34,00,000, KRW 67,320, the head of the Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City, Daejeon Metropolitan City, the second creditor, KRW 67,320, KRW 7,391,947, KRW 90,000, KRW 1,860,000, KRW 741,552, the amount to be distributed to the Defendant, the owner of which is the second creditor.
C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff had a loan claim against the Defendant. On January 31, 2013, the Plaintiff received a decision on provisional seizure of claims against the Defendant on January 31, 2013 (Seoul District Court 2013Kadan214), and subsequently received a seizure and assignment order (Seoul District Court 2013Dadan1290, Oct. 29, 2013) that was transferred to the instant provisional seizure order on November 18, 2013.
Based on the above attachment and assignment order, the Plaintiff received the total amount of KRW 733,743 (the amount calculated by adding interest to the surplus that the Defendant received in the distribution procedure in this case and deducting the enforcement cost) from the surplus deposited in the Defendant in the distribution procedure in Jinwon District Court Jinwon Branch E in January 10, 2014.
E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff did not demand a distribution in the instant distribution procedure, and did not make a provisional seizure or seizure of the instant real estate.
In addition, the plaintiff appeared in the distribution procedure of this case and raised an objection to the dividend.