beta
Text
1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on July 28, 2015, the Daejeon District Court’s distribution procedure case to the Defendants.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On December 21, 2012, the Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land and Housing Corporation”) under the contract between G and the Nonparty Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Land and Housing Corporation”) set the price of KRW 2,579,767,000 as the price to G (the trade name before and after the alteration is a “stock company I”; hereinafter “G”) on December 21, 2012, which was executed by the Nonparty Corporation (hereinafter “H landscaping”).
(hereinafter “instant contract”). Since then, the said amount was changed to KRW 2,106,838,484.
B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against J and K, the executive officer of G, the Daejeon District Court 2010Kadan21785, the Daejeon District Court 2010. On July 2, 2010, the said court rendered a favorable judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on the following purport: “G, J, and K deliver to the Plaintiff, and jointly pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to KRW 1,80,000 per month from November 25, 2009 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.” The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time. 2) The Plaintiff filed a favorable judgment with the Daejeon District Court 2013TTT285, which was issued by G, with the title of execution, to order the collection of KRW 68,40,00 (from November 21, 2009, to December 31, 2009, to order the collection of KRW 200,000 based on the instant contract’s construction cost.
On March 5, 2013, the above decision was served on the Non-Party Corporation, a garnishee.
C. (1) The Defendants, including the seizure and collection order of the Defendants, filed an application with the Daejeon District Court 2013 tea6200, for a payment order against G, with the Defendants as the designated parties to the collection order. On July 3, 2013, the said court issued a payment order to G to order the Defendants to pay the money listed in the attached Table 1] B. (b) and its delay damages. (2) The said court did not object to G.