logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.08.31 2017가단4337
배당이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 3, 2016 between the Plaintiff and C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”), the Plaintiff, on September 1, 2015, to July 31, 2016, approved that the Nonparty Co., Ltd. bears the obligation of KRW 38,50,000 (= KRW 3,500,000 x 11 month) in total for 11-month wages from September 1, 2015 to July 31, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted a notary public’s authentic deed of obligation (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On September 7, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order against the non-party company’s claim against the non-party company as the claim amounting to 38,50,000 won by Busan District Court 2016TTT18027, and the non-party company and the third debtor of the Republic of Korea (the Air Force Headquarters, claim amounting to 12,83,333 won) on September 7, 2016.

C. The Defendant, based on the No. 1098 of the No. 1098 of the No. 2015, issued a claim attachment and collection order against the non-party company as the Busan District Court 2016TTT 200 on June 27, 2016 on the price for the goods to the Republic of Korea by taking the non-party company and the third debtor as KRW 20,315,120 on the basis of the No. 1098 of the No. 109, the Defendant issued the claim attachment and collection order against the non-party company. The above collection order was served on the non-party company on July 11, 2016.

Korea deposited 11,438,254 won as the Daegu District Court 2016No7899 on the grounds of competition such as seizure, etc., the distribution procedure was conducted to Busan District Court B.

On January 23, 2017, the date of the above distribution was set up in the order of 1,753,590 won in the North Busan District Tax Office, which is the seizure authority, and 5,926,324 won in the second order, to the defendant who is the collection authority, and 3,743,737 won in the amount of dividends, respectively, to the plaintiff who is the collection authority.

The plaintiff raised an objection against the whole amount distributed by the defendant on the date of distribution.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 6 to 8, and 11.

arrow