beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant C in the judgment is modified as follows.
Daejeon District Court N.N.
Reasons
1. A 472,525 won (2015.140), 29,216 won (2015.141) 29,216 won (2015.5.561) 3,566, 138 won (1417), Defendant C4 provisional attachment right (1996.1046), Defendant H 4 distribution right (13,325,729 won), Defendant J4 distribution right (195.3742), Defendant J4 distribution right (193.28), 38,222 won, 486 won, Defendant C4 provisional attachment right (1996.1046), 4,06,896 won (195.3742), 13,325,729 won, and 483 won;
A. On May 18, 2017, the following distribution schedule was prepared in the proceedings for the compulsory auction by official auction at the Daejeon District Court’s astronomical Branch (hereinafter “astronomical Branch”).
B. Plaintiff A Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit to revoke provisional seizure against the Defendants, and the result is as follows.
As a result of the creditor's provisional attachment revocation lawsuit, Defendant Ccheon-Support 1996Kahap1046, confirmation (Acheon-Support 2018Kahap75), revocation of support 1996Kahap1417, confirmation (Acheon-Support 2018Kahap82), Defendant Hcheon-Support 1995Kahap906, confirmation (Acheon-Support 2018Kahap72, Daejeon High Court 2019Ra16, Daejeon High Court 2019Ma195, Supreme Court 2019Ma1165), Defendant Jcheon-Support 194Kahap-116, dismissal, confirmation (Acheon-Support 2018Kahap73, Daejeon High Court 2019Ra2, 2019Ma1966) / [Grounds] The purport of each of the arguments is to include evidence No. 1,8,98, Eul, 11-2, 196
2. Determination
A. In the case of Defendant C in part of Defendant C, the provisional seizure decision, which served as the basis for the distribution, should be excluded from the distribution.
B. Defendant H and J part 1) The Defendants asserted that the statute of limitations for the Defendants’ claims has expired after 10 years have elapsed since the main case judgment or the decision of compulsory adjustment became final and conclusive after filing a lawsuit on the merits of the case, or the decision of compulsory adjustment became final and conclusive. As such, the Defendants’ dividends based thereon are lawful.