배당이의
1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed.
3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On October 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an order for payment against D with the Gwangju District Court 2017 tea6949, and issued a payment order against D, stating that “D shall pay indemnity amount of KRW 31,549,920 and delay damages to the Plaintiff.”
B. On June 7, 2016, D entered into a mortgage agreement with the Defendant and the obligor D, the maximum debt amount of KRW 53,000,000, and the mortgagee’s mortgage agreement with the Defendant as the Defendant regarding the real estate indicated in the separate list owned by D (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage on June 9, 2016.
(hereinafter “instant collateral security”). C.
On March 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment on the instant real estate, etc. with the Gwangju District Court 2017Kadan19, Dagcheon-gun Court 2017Kadan19, which was issued a provisional attachment order on March 28, 2017, by deeming the claim for the indemnity against D as the claim for the indemnity.
(hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”). D.
On June 20, 2017, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute KRW 31,763,227 to the Defendant on May 1, 2018.
On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on May 3, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 5, 6, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Although the Plaintiff asserts that the mortgage contract of this case between D and the Defendant is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy, considering the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s assertion and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.
3. Whether the conjunctive claim is legitimate;
A. The plaintiff's assertion and the defendant's main defense of safety.