beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Both claims;
A. Although the Plaintiff’s assertion H applied for a personal rehabilitation (the Busan District Court Decision 2008Da17244, Oct. 19, 2009) against the Plaintiff, it became final and conclusive after the closure decision was rendered around October 19, 2009, when the Plaintiff’s wage claim was seized by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s allegation was drafted the instant distribution schedule on October 22, 2012 on the premise that the same attachment is valid, under the premise that the same is either invalid or invalid due to a false conspiracy, and that the overlapping attachment is valid. Therefore, the instant distribution schedule should be revised as the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim.
B. Defendant B’s assertion (1) lent KRW 35,00,000 to I on July 8, 2005, and KRW 60,000,00 on September 6, 2005. At that time, Defendant B guaranteed the above loan obligation by her husband, and attached and collected H’s benefit claim upon receiving a payment order based on the above deposit claim, and thus, the instant distribution schedule was lawful and valid.
(2) Defendant C lent KRW 50,00,000,00 to I on July 13, 2005, and KRW 10,000,00 on July 14, 2005, Defendant C guaranteed the above loan obligation by her husband H around that time, and attached and collected H’s wage claim upon the issuance of payment order based on the above deposit claim, and thus, the instant distribution schedule was lawful and effective.
(3) Defendant D lent KRW 60,00,000 to I on June 3, 2005, and KRW 10,000,000 on June 21, 2005, Defendant D guaranteed the above loan obligation by her husband H on June 21, 2005. Around that time, Defendant D guaranteed the above loan obligation by her husband H, who was issued a payment order based on the above security deposit claim, seized and collected H’s benefit claim (Yansan District Court 2012 Tasan District Court 201857). Accordingly, the instant distribution schedule was lawful and effective.
(4) Defendant E lent KRW 37,00,000 to I on September 30, 2006, and KRW 18,000,00 to H on March 8, 2008. Around that time, his husband’s husband’s husband’s joint and several debt of I, and H issued a payment order based on the above loan and deposit claim.