beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff filed an application with Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) for the payment order for loans of KRW 321,520,181 as Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 201Da7891, and damages for delay thereof. The said court rendered a decision accepting the above application on December 17, 2015, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.
B. The plaintiff is the above A.
The Seoul Central District Court 2016TTB22,469 won, based on the order of the first payment, filed an application for the seizure and collection order with respect to the claims held by the non-party company against the E-Housing Reconstruction and Improvement Project Association Establishment Promotion Committee. The above court rendered a ruling of accepting it on February 17, 2016, and the above ruling reached the third debtor around that time.
C. Meanwhile, the distribution procedure was initiated with respect to KRW 110,449,679 deposited in the name of the non-party company, as C of the Seoul Central District Court, and on January 13, 2017, the court held that KRW 55,129,716 out of the dividend of KRW 110,449,679 was distributed to F, a collection right holder of the Seoul Central District Court 2009, 408, and KRW 55,129,717 was distributed to F, a collection right holder of the Seoul Central District Court 2009, 2009,1980.
(hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) D.
The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection as to the whole amount of the Defendant’s claim and the amount of distribution among the distribution schedule of this case, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on January 20, 2017.
[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 6, 9, 10, Evidence No. 10, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion is invalid after being prepared by a person without the authority to prepare, or based on a false authentic copy of a notarial deed that does not have any actual obligation, the defendant was issued a seizure and collection order, and was already repaid by the non-party company which is the debtor.