beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단511265

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant (appointed party) and the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In order to secure the claims against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), the Industrial Bank of Korea completed the registration of establishment of each of the maximum debt amount of KRW 4,920,000 on June 18, 2013 with the joint collateral of F land and ground buildings, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On January 14, 2015, the Industrial Bank of Korea filed an application for voluntary auction of real estate in Suwon District Court C (D) with respect to each of the instant real estate, and transferred the right to collateral security and secured debt on each of the instant real estate to the Plaintiff after filing an application for auction.

C. On the date of distribution opened on March 28, 2016, the said auction court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes the following amounts to the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the premise that the claims of the Defendant (Appointed Party), the designated parties, and the Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendants”) constitute the priority wage claim. The Plaintiff appeared on the said date of distribution and raised an objection against the Defendants’ dividend amount.

The grounds for the dividend ranking creditor 1 A (Appointed)’s priority wage claim 6,804,960% 1 K 1 K 1 K 9,581,086 100% of the priority wage claim 7,667,960% of the priority wage claim 2,364,020% of the priority wage claim 1 B 2,390,300% of the priority wage claim 2,390,300% of the priority wage claim 1 N wage claim 2,915,50% 100% of the priority wage claim 5,059,360%, 100% of the priority wage claim 3,826,620% of the priority wage claim 4,530,572,9369% of the collective security interest claim 3 Plaintiffs, 530,5369% of the argument number 2,514,51,539% of the argument number 2, and 1514

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant (Appointed Party) asserted (1) against Defendant A (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) served approximately two months in Q, E, and R for six months from September 1, 2014 to March 30, 2015. The location of the headquarters of Q and E is the same, and R and E’s representative director are the same.