beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. With respect to the claim for denial filed by the Jeonju District Court 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 21, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment with respect to 1/2 of the debtor’s share among “1/2 of the instant land” (hereinafter “instant land”) with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Kadan48929 (hereinafter “debtor”). On the same day, the provisional attachment registration was completed with respect to the debtor’s share on September 25, 2012.
B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the debtor for the payment order seeking the payment of the above loan claim under Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013 tea46028. On July 9, 2013, the above court ordered the Plaintiff to pay the payment order for KRW 66,037,70 and delay damages for KRW 53,77,646 among the obligor’s payment order. The above payment order became final and conclusive on July 30, 2013.
C. On October 31, 2012, the debtor filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Jeonju District Court 2012Hadan2046.
The Seocheon Livestock Cooperatives applied for a voluntary auction on the instant land to Daejeon District Court Red Branch D, and rendered a decision of voluntary auction on December 13, 2012. On July 31, 2013, the date of distribution, the said court distributed KRW 10,741,964 to the Plaintiff on July 31, 2013, and the Plaintiff received the said dividends on the same day.
E. The debtor was declared bankrupt on September 9, 2013.
The Defendant, a trustee in bankruptcy, asserted against the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff’s act of receiving dividends during the said voluntary auction procedure constituted an act of denial under Articles 391 subparag. 2 and 395 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), and filed a claim for denial by the lower court on June 17, 2014, deeming that the act of receiving dividends by the Plaintiff constituted an act of denial under Articles 391 subparag. 2 and 395 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and that the act of receiving dividends by the Plaintiff constitutes an act of denial under Articles 391 subparag. 2 and 395 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, against the Defendant.