(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.24 2017나68707

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.24 2017나68707

배당이의

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The trust assets of the debtor E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) (hereinafter “E”) were sold from the F Auction case of the Suwon District Court of Suwon District, and the amount of KRW 357,667,488 was distributed to the International Asset Trust, and the International Asset Trust deposited the assets as a third debtor.

B. As to the right to claim the payment of the deposit money of the Plaintiff, Defendant A, Defendant B (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant, etc.”), Nonparty G, and the Defendants of the first instance judgment, the seizure process (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution procedure”) was initiated on April 1, 2016, and the distribution procedure was initiated on April 1, 2016 to the Plaintiff on the date of distribution (the claim of KRW 11,42,482, KRW 17,654,632 (the claim of KRW 17,625,30 as the collection creditor) against the Defendant of the first instance court, and KRW 50,654,632 (the claim of KRW 78,025,30 as the collection creditor), and the Defendant 10,56,5051 (the claim of KRW 16,305,00 as the collection creditor) against the Defendant.

C. On April 1, 2016, the Plaintiff raised an objection to the distribution of each of the above dividends by the Defendant, etc., and the Plaintiff raised an objection to the distribution in the same month.

5. The instant lawsuit was filed in the instant court.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant et al. prepared a notarial deed for a loan without any substantive substance in collusion with E as a related party to E, and received dividends in the distribution procedure of this case after receiving a seizure and collection order. Since all of the above claims are the most false claims, or are illegal and invalid because they fall under the above notarial deed, the above claims are all false claims, or they are illegal and invalid. Thus, the distribution of the defendant et al.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is general.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2016.12.06 2016가단41918

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.06.14 2016가단3886

-창원지방법원 2018.04.19 2017가합53036

-광주지방법원 2017.11.02 2016가합56696

-광주지방법원 2017.10.19 2016가합54485