beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that "52,614,170 won" of Part 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "51,614,170 won" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that part
Parts used for repair.
3. Determination
A. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff must assert and prove the facts constituting the grounds for the objection against distribution. As such, the creditor who filed an objection against distribution by asserting that the other party's claim is disguised shall bear the burden of proof therefor.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178 delivered on November 14, 1997). B.
In the instant case, the evidence evidence Nos. 5 through 16 alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants’ claims are false bonds created in collusion with D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them. Rather, in light of the following facts and circumstances, each entry of Nos. 1, 2, 4, 8 through 12, 18, 19, and 20 as well as each entry of Nos. 1, 19, and 20 as a whole in the testimony of the witness D, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendants’ claims have been genuine. (1) The witness D stated that the Defendants borrowed KRW 100,000 from the Defendant A on September 30, 201 and May 23, 2012, and that the Defendants borrowed KRW 27,000,000,000 from the Defendant B, respectively, to whom each of the above loans was granted to D and thus, the Defendants appears to have been granted a provisional seizure order by each of the above loans.
However, the defendant A was the Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan42921 on July 31, 2012, prior to the decision to commence the auction.