2006da78478 Demurrer against a distribution

Is 00

Bucheon-si

00

Gwangju

Gwangju at the place of service

September 5, 2006

November 28, 2006

1. Of the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on August 10, 2006 in the distribution procedure of Gwangju District Court 2006Tag1851, the amount of dividends against the defendant shall be 3,255,796 won, and the amount of dividends against the plaintiff shall be 1,67,355 won, and 172,223 won shall be corrected to 1,67,355 won.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The order is as set forth in the text.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against 00 Incheon District Court Branch 2004 Ghana 18817 claim for damages against 10,000, and the decision in lieu of conciliation was made in part of the Plaintiff in the lawsuit above.

B. According to the above decision, the Plaintiff received an assignment order (the claim amounting to KRW 1,800,000) from the Gwangju District Court Decision 2004Tari-7236 against the debtor Choju-si, and the above order was finalized.

C. Meanwhile, the Naju-si deposited the seized portion of the wage claim of 00, and the Gwangju District Court distributed the said deposit under 1851, 2006, and the Plaintiff made a demand for distribution (the amount of claim KRW 1,67,355) based on the above claim seizure and assignment order. In the distribution procedure, the Defendant defective the demand for distribution by making the amount of claim KRW 46,368,596 as the amount of credit, and the above court, on August 10, 2006, deemed the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the above creditor, and distributed KRW 4,760,918 to the Defendant and the Plaintiff KRW 172,233, respectively.

[Ground for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1- 5 (including additional number)

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. Summary of the assertion

The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff prepared a false promissory note notarial deed with a view to evading his/her obligation even though there is no relation of actual obligation between the defendant and 100, the plaintiff should not distribute it to the defendant of the most bondholder, and the defendant should not pay it to the defendant of the most bondholder. In response, the defendant asserts that he/she is a true creditor with a claim of KRW 65 million against 00.

B. Determination

According to Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that on August 20, 1998, Cho 00 issued a promissory note with a face value of 65 million won to the defendant on which a notarial deed was prepared on February 5, 2003. According to the above facts of recognition, after a considerable period of time has elapsed, a notarial deed was prepared on August 20, 1998, which is considerably exceptional in light of the empirical rule. Further, the above 65 million won was a large amount of money, and the defendant did not submit any materials even after receiving a demand from this court to submit financial account or financial transaction records, etc. paid to 65 million won, or 65 million won was paid to 0 million won, and the defendant did not prove that the notarial deed was in the form of a notarial deed with respect to which the notarial deed was prepared on August 20, 1998.

Therefore, the distribution schedule should be revised to distribute to the plaintiff who made a statement of objection to the distribution amount equivalent to KRW 1,505,132, which is the amount that the plaintiff did not receive after making a demand for distribution, because it was erroneous to distribute the distribution to the defendant in the procedure of Gwangju District Court 2006ta-Ba 1851.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Non-life iron metal