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. On August 28, 2013, Dong Sang-dong Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong Sang-dong”) established a pledge on the following deposit claims against Gyeongnam Bank as a security for insurance contracts concluded with the Defendant, and issued its certificate of deposit to the Defendant, and Gyeongnam Bank accepted the said pledge with a certificate with a certified fixed date on the same day.
(2) On August 28, 2013, the term deposit in the same case is “the instant deposit” and the said pledge is “the instant pledge”). The entire principal and interest amounting to KRW 600 million on August 28, 2013, within the scope of the pledge right of each class of deposit certificates on the date of establishment.
B. In order to guarantee the payment of damages pursuant to a contract for the use of the CMS, the East Asia entered into a guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant for implementation (payment) with the following contents:
The insured insured period of insurance on the date of the contract shall be from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015, which is KRW 350,000,000 to KRW 350,000 on September 30, 2014.
C. On January 19, 2016, Gyeongnam Bank deposited KRW 614,068,760 in total with the principal and interest of the said deposit under the U.S. District Court No. 2016, 2016 on the ground that the existence of the Defendant’s pledge against the instant deposit was unknown, and that there was seizure from multiple creditors, including the Plaintiff and the employees of the same group.
In the process of distributing the above deposit money to Ulsan District Court B, and the amount of KRW 518,108,889 was distributed to the defendant, the plaintiff stated that there was an objection against the dividend to the defendant on the date of distribution.
(hereinafter the above distribution procedure is referred to as "the distribution procedure of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap's statements in subparagraphs 1 through 4, Eul's evidence in subparagraphs 1 through 3 (including provisional statements with numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff's assertion is reasonable in relation to the same amount as to the same Article, among the money distributed to the defendant in the distribution procedure of this case for the following reasons.