beta
Text
1. Of each distribution schedule prepared on December 23, 2014 by this Court with respect to this Court B, C, D, E, F, and G distribution procedures cases.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The plaintiffs are the plaintiffs' status 1) The Large Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "Large Industrial Development").
(2) The Plaintiffs filed an application for provisional seizure of each real estate on the site AC located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Daejeon-gun, 201, 2045, 201, 2013Kahap261, 2013Kadan267, 2014Kadan174, 253, and 171, on the ground that, even though the exclusive area of the AB apartment was lower than the exclusive area under the sales contract of the AB apartment, the Plaintiff was fully paid the sales price and made unjust enrichment equivalent to the shortage of the sales price under the sales contract of the AB apartment.
B. In order to revoke the execution of the Plaintiffs’ respective provisional attachment order, the current deposit industry development of the large-scale industrial development was deposited with the Republic of Korea as the gold No. 2414, 2415, and 2416 in December 16, 2013, and as the gold No. 370 in February 13, 2014, respectively, as of February 17, 2014 (hereinafter “each of the instant provisional attachment deposits”).
C. On April 9, 2013, the Defendant’s development of the modern industry (i) a monetary loan agreement No. 1,480,000 won that the notary public borrowed from the Defendant on April 9, 2013 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) to the effect that “the development of the modern industry borrowed KRW 1,40,000,000 from the Defendant on April 9, 2013.”
(2) On August 22, 2014, based on the instant notarial deed, the Defendant was issued a seizure and collection order as to the amount until it reaches the amount of KRW 1,584,109,589 (i.e., the principal of a monetary loan agreement 1.44,109,589) out of the right to recover each of the deposits in the instant case (i.e., the principal of a monetary loan agreement 1.4 billion won).
The reason is that the provisional attachment and collection order of the plaintiffs conflict with the defendant's right to claim the collection of deposits from each of the 1st cases, including the preparation of the distribution schedule.