Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others

January 30, 2013

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Gadan29943 Decided September 27, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. With respect to the case of compulsory auction by real estate at 13739, the amount of dividends to Defendant 1 among the dividend table prepared on July 4, 2012 prepared by this court, KRW 3,658,515 won against Defendant 1, KRW 670,739, KRW 33,656,151 won against Defendant 2, KRW 936,860, and KRW 10,090,819 won against Defendant 3, KRW 2,979,279, KRW 15,32,405 won against Defendant 4, KRW 2,807,163 won, and KRW 33,656,151 won against the Plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 80,00,000, respectively.

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (b) the “2009” in Chapter 3, 14, 3, 209 (the second table 3); and (c) the “injury” in Chapter 8, 20, 8, 20, 8, 20, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 420, 420, 420

[Supplementary Parts]

E. Claim for violation of the duty of explanation

1) The assertion

Even though it is unclear whether the Plaintiff’s application for compulsory execution in this case made a demand for distribution as a general creditor, or exercised a preferential right to reimbursement, it is unlawful to view the Plaintiff as a general creditor and exclude it from the dividend, without following such procedures, even though the executing court should have guaranteed the opportunity to correct it by ordering correction or questioning the Plaintiff under the Civil Procedure Act and the Non-Contentious Case Litigation Procedure Act.

2) Determination

In light of the above facts, since it is clear that the plaintiff's application for compulsory execution of this case was made as a general creditor and it is not clear whether the court of execution exercised the right to preferential payment as a tenant, it is difficult to view that the court of execution has the above obligation to explain. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all of the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Su Young-hee (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)

Judges Cho Mara Mara Mada unable to sign and seal on maternity leave