logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원군산지원 2015.04.02 2014가합1852
전부금
Text

1. The action shall be dismissed;

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was issued a seizure and assignment order (hereinafter “instant seizure and assignment order”) with respect to the dividend claim that the Seogwon Co., Ltd. owned against the Defendant in the distribution procedure in the real estate auction case B in this Court as the Gwangju District Court 2009TTTT No. 1333, and the assignment order became final and conclusive.

B. On February 18, 2010, the court prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 1,038,383,037, which is the date of distribution of the above auction, is distributed to the luminous electricity. The court raised an objection against the entire amount of distribution of the luminous electricity by C, D, and E, the real estate owner.

C. In a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution filed by C, D, and E against the mine electric power, the Plaintiff was refused to send a letter of consignment to the executing court in order to pay dividends of KRW 1,038,383,037 deposited in the form of a deposit as a whole creditor of the mine electric power on November 18, 2014 and to deliver a certificate of qualification to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Ground for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute

2. In a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff’s assertion, as long as the distribution schedule became final and conclusive as against the Plaintiffs (C, D, and E), the distribution schedule is finalized as is, and the executing court shall deliver dividends to the Seodaemun Electric in accordance with the final and conclusive distribution schedule. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff, who received the entire claim for the dividends of the Seodaemun Electricity, the total amount of KRW 1,038,383,037 and delay damages

3. Determination as to the defendant's defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendant’s defense prior to the merits was rejected by filing an application with the court of execution to send a letter of entrustment to the public official in charge of the deposit in the future and to deliver a certificate of qualification to the Plaintiff in order to pay the dividend of the Seodaemun Electricity deposited as a whole creditor of the Seodaemun Electricity. As to the above disposition of the court of execution, Article 16(1)1 of the Civil Execution Act provides for “The enforcement court.”

arrow