Demurrer against distribution

A lawsuit of demurrer against distribution may be brought by a creditor who appeared on the date of distribution and stated an objection against the distribution schedule prepared by the court of execution. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff made a statement of objection against the amount of distribution to the Republic of Korea, and the lawsuit of this case is unlawful.

Special Provisions concerning auction under Article 16 of the Provisional Registration Security Act, etc.

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant ○○ City shall be dismissed in entirety.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant ○ Card Co., Ltd. and ○○ Bank is dismissed in entirety.

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

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on June 9, 2006, the amount of 1,112,920 won against the Republic of Korea, the amount of 2,48,290 won against the defendant ○○○○○○○○ Card Co., Ltd., the amount of 3,332,679 won, the amount of 1,196,07 won against the defendant ○○○ Card Co., Ltd., and the amount of 1,196,007 won shall be deleted, respectively, and the amount of 0 won against the plaintiff shall be corrected to 8,089,896 won.

1. Basic facts

A. In the auction case of real estate rent in ○○○○○ apartment ○○○○○○ apartment ○○○○○○○○○, which was owned by ○○○○○○○○○○○○, (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”), which commenced on the commencement of the auction case of real estate rent in ○○○ District Court 2005 Mata3112, the above court, on June 9, 2006, after deducting execution expenses from the sale price, etc. on the date of distribution, was 1,12,920 won in 195,140,697 won in the Republic of Korea (competent: the head of the competent tax office), who is the holder of the right of delivery, at the second and second priority of KRW 187,050,80, and KRW 2,448,290 in ○○○○○○○○○ apartment ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a mortgagee and 37,000.

B. On June 9, 2006, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution as a person holding a provisional registration, and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends of Defendant ○ Card and Defendant ○ Bank, and filed the instant lawsuit on the 14th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant ○○ City

The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendant Republic of Korea and defendant ○○ City by the main safety objection or ex officio may be brought by the creditor who appeared on the date of distribution and stated an objection against the distribution schedule prepared by the court of execution as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case against the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant ○○ City. In this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff stated an objection against the amount of distribution against the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant ○○ City on the date of distribution on June 9, 2006, since there is no evidence to support that the plaintiff stated an objection against the amount of distribution against the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant ○○ City on the date of distribution of the real estate auction case.

B. Claim against Defendant ○ Card and Defendant ○ Bank

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff, on March 4, 2003, lent KRW 40 million to ○○○, the owner of the apartment of this case, to secure the above loan claim, and registered the right to claim ownership transfer on the ground of a pre-sale on March 4, 2003 as ○○ District Court ○○○○○ Branch ○○○○ Branch ○○○ ○○ ○○ ○804 on March 5, 2003, which was received on March 5, 2003, and filed a registration of the right to claim ownership transfer as to the apartment of this case on the ground of a pre-sale agreement on March 4, 2004. The plaintiff asserted that the completion period for the right to claim ownership transfer should be excluded from the dividend of this case by removing the dividend amount against the defendants, which should be distributed to the plaintiff who is a senior creditor, rather than the defendants.

(2) Determination

In light of the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and No. 3 and No. 4, the provisional registration authority for security can receive dividends only in the case where there is a legitimate peremptory notice from the auction court. In full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the evidence Nos. 3 and No. 3, a peremptory notice to the effect that the auction court shall report the provisional registration of security to the plaintiff and its contents, claims, etc. until September 26, 2005, which is the plaintiff's domicile on the real estate registration register of the apartment of this case, was served to ○○○○-dong, ○○○-dong, ○○○, which is the plaintiff's domicile on the real estate registration register of the apartment of this case, but it was impossible for the plaintiff to receive dividends by registered mail at the same address on July 26, 2005. This delivery is legitimate as it constitutes a method deemed reasonable under Article 8 of the Civil Execution Rule, and since the plaintiff was found to have raised an objection only by attending the date of distribution.

3. Conclusion

If so, all of the lawsuits against Defendant Republic of Korea and Defendant ○○○ City are dismissed, and the claims against Defendant ○ Card and Defendant ○○ Bank are dismissed on the ground that they are without any need to further examine, and all of them are without merit.