배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Jeonju District Court 2014Gahap1247 against D (hereinafter “D”) seeking the payment of the acquisition amount, etc., and sentenced D to the Plaintiff on April 2, 2015. The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
B. On the other hand, on April 1, 2015, D, a notary public, from the Defendant on April 1, 2015, borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant on February 2, 2015, as a law firm Locom No. 216, and: (i) D, on February 2, 2015, borrowed KRW 20 million from the Defendant; (ii) if the said obligation is not performed, the Defendant’s compulsory execution is recognized; and (iii) in order to secure the said obligation, D’s corporeal movables, such as electric horse machines, fack, and learning machines, which are owned by the Defendant as security for transfer, was drafted a notarial deed of money loan for transfer (hereinafter
C. Since then, in the compulsory execution procedure (2015.74, 2015.119) against the said corporeal movables, the said corporeal movables were sold to KRW 15,004,877 (the amount to be distributed after deducting the execution cost), but the said corporeal movables were sold to KRW 13,304,877 (the amount to be distributed after deducting the execution cost), but as the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the creditor, could not satisfy the entire claims and did not reach a dividend agreement, the distribution procedure was implemented to the Southern District Court Branch C, and on May 2, 2016, a distribution schedule was formulated
Defendant 122’s dividends ranking 9,790,255 won 15,080 won 15,347,579 [based on recognition] did not dispute, each entry in the evidence No. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments of Defendant 122
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that a monetary loan contract and a security contract for movable property transfer concluded by the Defendant in preparing the instant notarial deed with D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant contract”) constitute null and void for the following reasons.
Therefore, the defendant is a creditor or a secured party against D.