The judgment below

The part concerning Defendant B is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal against Defendant A, the lower court, based on its stated reasoning, determined that it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant A in collusion with D and participated in the distribution as a false loan claim, dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant A.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned fact-finding and determination is justifiable. Contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles

2. As to the ground of appeal against Defendant B

A. According to Article 88(1) of the Civil Execution Act and Article 48 of the Civil Execution Rule, a creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a decision to commence the auction may receive a distribution only in cases where he/she has made a demand for distribution by the completion period for the demand for distribution, and the said demand for distribution shall be made by attaching a document proving the qualification for demand for distribution, such as a certificate of registered matters concerning the provisional seizure, which

If a provisional seizure order issued by a creditor has been revoked, the creditor loses the status of receiving dividends as the creditor of provisional seizure. Therefore, revocation of the provisional seizure decision may serve as a ground for demurrer against the distribution against the creditor of provisional seizure in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

Furthermore, in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff may assert as a ground for objection the grounds for objection that occurred after the date of distribution and until the date of closing argument in fact-finding proceedings. Thus, even in a case where the provisional attachment order was revoked during the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution after

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da10523 Decided June 11, 2015). B.

The judgment below

The reasoning and the evidence duly admitted by the court below reveal the following facts.

1 The plaintiff is based on the final judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2005da27378 claim amount against D.