logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원(창원) 2014.07.10 2013나2408
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

In the lawsuit of this case, the creditor subrogation claim is dismissed.

(b).

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is used as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On June 26, 2013, the first instance court’s decision No. 18 stated that “A lawsuit is pending at present by filing a lawsuit,” which is “The dismissal judgment was rendered on June 26, 2013, and the appeal is pending at the appellate court [Supplementary High Court (original High Court)].”

B. Parts 4 to 11 of the first instance judgment are as follows.

1) Even if the execution court established the amount of dividends against the creditor of provisional seizure on the date of distribution, and without any objection as to the existence of the preserved claim against other creditor on the date of distribution, the amount of dividends against the creditor of provisional seizure is revoked after the deposit of the amount of dividends against the creditor of provisional seizure or when the creditor of provisional seizure is ruled against against the creditor of provisional seizure in the principal lawsuit, the deposit shall not be delivered to the debtor, but shall be additionally distributed to other creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da32681, Apr. 9, 2004). 2), first of all, in full view of the purport of the arguments in each of the above items: (i) evidence No. 17-1, 2, and 3, as a whole, in the auction procedure of this case, the F. of the creditor of provisional seizure at the status of deposit after receiving dividends of KRW 885,760,11, cannot be deemed to have suffered any loss from the execution of provisional seizure of this case.

3. The following:

arrow