beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts are as follows: “The Defendant appealed from the last parallel of the judgment of the court of first instance on September 4, 2013 and is continuing to the appellate court under the Seoul Central District Court No. 2013Na45210 as of September 4, 2013.” The Defendants appealed from the Seoul Central District Court No. 2013Na45210 and Supreme Court No. 20145, July 23, 2014 and November 27, 2014, each of which was dismissed and the judgment became final and conclusive (hereinafter “this case’s final judgment”), and “No. 12” of the second parallel of the judgment on November 5, 2014 as “Evidence 14” and it is reasonable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except as otherwise stated in the corresponding part of the judgment.
2. Determination:
A. Although a claim statement was submitted to an auction court as a mortgagee, if the contract establishing the right to collateral security was revoked as a fraudulent act, it cannot be deemed a legitimate demand for distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da33069, Sept. 24, 2002). Meanwhile, in cases where the auction court recognized the mortgagee as a creditor entitled to receive a distribution, and paid the dividend as the result of the fraudulent act, if the contract establishing the right to collateral security was revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act, the dividend paid to the mortgagee should be distributed to the other person entitled to demand distribution who could have received a more distribution in the distribution procedure
(Supreme Court Decision 201Da60421 Decided December 26, 2012). B.
Examining the facts acknowledged in light of the aforementioned legal principles, since each of the instant mortgage contracts was revoked by the final judgment of the instant case as a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff, each of the dividend amounts against the Defendants should be distributed to the distribution right holder who would have been entitled to receive dividends if they had not existed (the Defendant shall not be entitled to receive dividends, as he did not have the right to demand distribution). Review of the facts acknowledged earlier.