beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 18, 2011, D leased KRW 99.6 million to the Plaintiff at the due date set at 20% per annum of November 25, 2011, and from the Plaintiff a notarial deed stating that “if the Plaintiff fails to perform the above loan obligation, it shall be acknowledged that there is no objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution” (No. 2024, 201) was prepared and delivered by a notary public.
B. On November 21, 2011, the Plaintiff deposited the amount of KRW 9,60,000 as U.S. deposit money (hereinafter “the instant deposit money”) from the U.S. District Court No. 4742 in 2011 in order to revoke the execution of provisional seizure on the real estate owned by the Plaintiff.
C. D had been granted execution clause on the above notarial deed, and the Plaintiff filed an application for the attachment and assignment order of claims with the Daegu District Court’s Young-gu District Court’s Young-gu Branch 201TTT 1141 regarding the Plaintiff’s right to claim the recovery of deposit against the Republic of Korea. On December 9, 2011, the said court rendered a decision on the attachment and assignment order of claims as stated in the above
In the distribution procedure of the Daegu District Court Young-gu District Court (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”), the said court made a distribution schedule that distributes the sum of KRW 101,58,812 to the Defendant, who is the full right holder of D, of KRW 51,82,995 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) on October 29, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, facts with merit in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that “D’s claim against the Plaintiff does not exist, so it is unreasonable to distribute dividends to the Defendant, who is the full right holder of D.”
In regard to this, the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits to the effect that “D is a creditor with an executory exemplification of executive titles, and thus, the Plaintiff, a debtor in the distribution procedure of the instant case, cannot file a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution.”
(b).