손해배상
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of “determination on the grounds for appeal No. 4. 5” following the fifth sentence of the judgment of first instance, and thus, it is identical to the part of the grounds for appeal No. 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
【Supplementary Part】 4. Judgment on the Grounds for Appeal
A. The summary of the assertion is that the instant dividends to N andO are not the creditors of B, and thus, even though there was no right to receive dividends in the instant dividend proceeding, the said company and N andO have been yielded part of the dividends through conciliation. Therefore, the dividends to N andO are invalid.
The Plaintiff is a legitimate dividend holder of the distribution procedure of this case, so long as no lawsuit of demurrer was filed to exclude the executory power of the promissory note of this case and the seizure and assignment order based on the above notarial deed became final and conclusive.
B. According to the above evidence, the following facts are recognized. (A) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s attachment and assignment order based on the instant promissory note No. 1 became final and conclusive, and there was no lawsuit of objection to the claim of the instant promissory note No. 1.
B. On September 1, 2008, HJ filed a lawsuit for revocation of a fraudulent act against the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2010Kahap3184, and it argued that it lent KRW 500 million to B around September 1, 2008.
On July 14, 2010, the above court rendered a ruling dismissing the claim of the Switzerland on the ground that the Switzerland retired completely from the credit and obligation related to the above loan by completing the registration of creation of a collateral on the real estate owned by Q, R, N, andO by Q, and Q, N, andO. The above ruling did not appeal by the Switzerland, and the above ruling did not appeal by the Switzerland.
8. 11. A final and conclusive date.
C. Nevertheless, in the instant dividend procedure, the Switzerland received dividends of KRW 529,60,108,00 in the instant dividends procedure, and in this case, this Court Decision 2013Na10453.