(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나52693

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나52693

배당이의

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The distribution procedures for the Hayang District Court of the Suyang Branch of the District Court.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that Defendant C received wages from Nonparty C in excess of the amount of wages, and there is no wage claim, Defendant F cannot be deemed as having actually provided labor with children of the representative director of the Nonparty Company, and the amount cannot be believed. Defendant D, E, and G are false wage creditors who are not themselves working for the Nonparty Company.

Therefore, the dividend amount to the Defendants should be deleted in the instant distribution schedule, and each of the dividend amount should be corrected to the effect that the Plaintiff distributes the dividend amount to the Plaintiff.

B. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the burden of proof of grounds for objection against distribution also complies with the general principle of allocation of the burden of proof of civil lawsuit. In the event that the Plaintiff claims that the Defendant’s claim was not constituted, the Defendant is liable to prove the fact of the cause of the claim, and where the Plaintiff claims that the claim was invalidated as a false declaration of agreement or extinguished by repayment,

(1) In the event that the Defendant’s assertion and evidence regarding the establishment of a claim are difficult to believe as they are in violation of logical and empirical rules, it is reasonable to consider such circumstances in determining whether a claim is false in determining whether a claim is established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da27998 Decided July 24, 2008). C.

Since the fact that the above defendant was an employee of the non-party company of the non-party company to claim against the defendant C does not dispute between the parties, it is examined whether the above defendant has a claim for wages, etc. equivalent to KRW 8,250,133 against the

l.p. g., p.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 7. 12. 선고 2005다39617 판결

유사 판례

-부산고등법원(창원) 2015.09.17 2014나4166

-의정부지방법원 2018.12.05 2018나2715

-부산지방법원 2017.06.09 2015가단241484

-인천지방법원 2020.07.16 2019나68339

-대전지방법원 2016.10.13 2015가단35819