Busan District Court 201 Gohap17505 (Law No. 19, 2012)

The debtor's right is not transferred to the creditor or a title trust relationship is established between the debtor and the creditor on the ground that the succession execution clause is granted.

The succeeding execution clause means the execution clause granted for the execution in case where the parties succeed to the execution clause, and it does not mean that the debtor's right is transferred to the creditor or that a title trust relationship is established between the debtor and the creditor on the ground that the succeeding execution clause is granted. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that a title trust relationship is established upon the grant of the succeeding execution clause

2012Na50407 Demurrer against distribution

AAA enterprise, Inc.

ParkBB et al.

Busan District Court Decision 201Na17505 Decided July 19, 2012

April 25, 2013

June 13, 2013

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

O Purport of claim

Busan District Court 201TA71516, and the above court saw the debtor ParkBB as debtor ParkCC and ParkO, and 000 of the dividend amount for the defendant Korea as 00 won, and 000 won for the plaintiff as dividend amount for the defendant JungD as 00 won, respectively, in the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on August 16, 201.

O Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked and the judgment as stated in the purport of the claim shall be sought.

O Claim - With respect to Defendant ParkBB added in the trial of the party:

The defendant ParkBB selected, and on December 26, 2005 with respect to the mediation protocol No. 98 money1991 of the Busan District Court, the Busan District Court issued the defendant ParkB with an objection to the succession execution clause granted by the defendant ParkB as of December 26, 2005. The defendant ParkB confirmed that the succession execution clause granted by the defendant ParkB to the defendant ParkB as of December 26, 2005 by the Busan District Court Law No. 98s1991.

As to the mediation protocol of Busan District Court 98 Ss. 1991, the defendant Hoddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd

1. Non-permission of change in request;

The modification of a claim can be made within the time of the closure of pleadings in the fact-finding court unless there is a significant delay in the proceedings, and the modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, which are merely different in the same living facts or the same economic interest dispute, does not change the basis of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da4416, Apr. 24, 1998). If the court recognizes that the modification of the purport or cause of the claim is not appropriate, it shall make a decision not to permit the modification either ex officio or upon request of the other party (Article 263 of the Civil Procedure Act). In this case, health class, and the plaintiff, like the initial claim in Busan District Court Decision 2011Hu516, Busan District Court Decision 2001, the distribution of dividends to the defendant, Korea, and DD, as stated in the distribution schedule, are unreasonable, and it constitutes a modification of the plaintiff's claim 2, which is obviously separate from the plaintiff 2, as stated in the "the claim 2010, and the plaintiff 2.

2. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasons for this Court's ruling on this case are as follows, and the plaintiff's argument is additionally determined and some contents of the judgment of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the dismissal of some contents of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. Parts to be determined additionally

A. The plaintiff asserts that, as Busan District Court 2003Kaga1660, the succeeding execution clause was granted to the above court 98 Ma1991, the plaintiff's right to the defendant ParkBBB under the above conciliation protocol was held in title trust to the plaintiff. Considering the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 4, the plaintiff applied for the succession execution clause to the above court 98 Maga1991 in accordance with the Busan District Court 2003 Maga2184 and the collection order, but the succeeding execution clause was rejected on April 24, 2003. Accordingly, the plaintiff filed an objection against the refusal of grant of execution clause with the above court 2003Kaga160, and the plaintiff's above court's refusal disposition was revoked from the above court, and KimO's assignment of execution clause was revoked and granted to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff's succession of execution clause was not established between the debtor and the creditor without the execution clause and the plaintiff's succession of execution clause.

B. The plaintiff's assignment of the damages for delay of this case to the defendant KimO is aimed at hindering or avoiding the compulsory execution according to the seizure and collection order of the plaintiff's Busan District Court 2003TTTT 2184, which constitutes a sort of fraudulent act, but there is no evidence, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4. The part to be mard;

The first instance court's judgment Nos. 10 to 12 are as follows.

In addition, as seen earlier, the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is filed by a person who asserts substantive objection to the existence, scope, and order of the creditor's claims indicated in the distribution schedule, and the debtor of the distribution procedure in this case is ParkBB and ParkCC and Park OO. In addition, in the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff cannot contest that the debtor is not the true debtor in the distribution procedure. Thus, the lawsuit of objection against the defendant ParkbB that the plaintiff changed the debtor ParkbB as indicated in the distribution schedule to ParkbB and Park O is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant ParkB is unlawful and dismissed, and the defendant's claim against the defendant, the Republic of Korea, and the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.