beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 21, 2017, the Defendant, the second priority on the distribution date, set up a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 8,123,309 to the Defendant, the second priority on the distribution date, and KRW 42,474,05 to the Plaintiff, the fourth priority on the distribution date.
B. On the aforementioned date of distribution, the Plaintiff appeared to raise an objection to the entire amount distributed to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on November 24, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits
A. As long as the Defendant’s gist of the Defendant’s assertion falls under a creditor with executive title with executory power, the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.
B. In a case where a debtor raises an objection against a distribution schedule prepared in the distribution procedure, the debtor who has raised an objection against a creditor who does not have an executory exemplification shall file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and the debtor who has raised an objection against a creditor who has an executory exemplification shall file a lawsuit of objection against a claim (Articles 256 and 154(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act) (Article 256, Article 154(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act). On the ground of the original payment order order against the plaintiff, Seoul Central District Court 2016 tea 493899 that the defendant filed a claim against the plaintiff and the distribution was made to the defendant is obvious in this court. Accordingly, the lawsuit of objection against the plaintiff against the defendant who is an executory exemplification is unlawful.) The plaintiff was a commencement order against the plaintiff's individual rehabilitation procedure on May 29, 2017, prior to the preparation of the distribution schedule of this case, and the defendant's claim against the plaintiff was changed on December 26, 2017.