logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.12.20 2017나476
배당이의
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except where the following items are used or added by the court of first instance, and thus, this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Each "witness" of not more than 3 parts 8 shall be referred to as "witness of the first instance trial", and this court shall be referred to as "the court of the first instance".

The registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the third place of the fourth place shall be completed by adding "the registration of the establishment of a mortgage" to "the registration of the establishment of a neighboring

Part 9 of the Chapter 5 is added to the following.

4) The Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit is unlawful. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the grounds for objection to a distribution alleged in the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case differs from those of the Plaintiff’s demurrer against the distribution on the initial date of distribution, and thus, is unlawful. In the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, the Plaintiff may assert all the grounds that cause the alteration of the distribution schedule to bring the Plaintiff’s benefit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da13710, 13727, Jul. 29, 2016). In addition, when filing an application of objection against the distribution, there is no need to state such grounds, and even if the Plaintiff stated the grounds, the Plaintiff’s means of attack in the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution to accomplish the said objection is not bound by the grounds for objection on the date of distribution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da457, Jan. 21, 1997). Therefore, the Defendant’s allegation as above is without merit.

Ma of the first instance court witness D and the first instance court witness M, respectively.

arrow