beta
Text
1. The plaintiff B's lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff Lee Dong-soo is dismissed, respectively.
3. The costs of the lawsuit.
Reasons
1. A person qualified as a party in a lawsuit of demurrer against a plaintiff B’s ex officio judgment on the lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution is the creditor or debtor who has raised an objection as to the distribution schedule, and among the creditors, only the creditor who has appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection is acknowledged as standing to sue, and the creditor who did not appear on the date of distribution in filing a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution is unlawful. According to the statement in Gap evidence 3, it is unlawful to seek correction of the distribution schedule against the defendant, since the plaintiff B did not appear on the date of distribution
2. The Plaintiff’s litigant A’s litigants (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s litigants”) received the Defendant’s dividends of KRW 25,297,978 in the distribution procedure under the Seoul Southern Site Act, based on false claims, based on the Defendant’s dividends of KRW 12,072,968, and the Defendant’s dividends of the Defendant’s litigant A’s litigants in the instant distribution schedule were corrected to KRW 6,46,195.
The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant claim is false or not, and the burden of proof in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution also complies with the principle of allocation of burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in a case where the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s claim has not been constituted, the Defendant is liable to prove the cause of the claim, and in a case where the Plaintiff asserts that the claim is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy or has become extinguished by repayment, the Plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the cause of disability or extinguishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). In the instant case, the responsibility to prove the fact
However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the assertion of the plaintiff's successor, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion.