beta
Text
1. The document prepared on April 26, 2018 by the above court with respect to a case of application for compulsory auction of the real estate B in the Chuncheon District Court Gangnam branch court.
Reasons
1. The Defendant asserted that C had a claim of KRW 1,394,691,609 (the details of its own tax are the same as that stated in the attached Form) based on the payment order, such as loans, etc. that the Seoul Central District Court 2010 tea80616, and received dividends of KRW 50,109,148 on January 23, 2014 in the auction procedure stated in the claim claim, and received additional dividends of KRW 3,232,145 on April 26, 2018. The Defendant’s claim against C does not exist.
Therefore, the dividend table prepared on April 26, 2018 (hereinafter “instant dividend table”) ought to be revised to include the total amount of KRW 3,232,145 against the Defendant as dividends to the Plaintiff.
2. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution also complies with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Thus, in the event that the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and in the event that the plaintiff asserts that the claim is null and void as a false declaration or extinguished as a result of repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the grounds for disability or extinguishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617, Jul. 12, 2007). In full view of the entries in subparagraphs 1 through 5 and the whole purport of arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 5, the fact that each of the above claims against the defendant C
However, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 6 and 10, the plaintiff collected KRW 27 million among the above claims (the principal stated in paragraph (1) of the attached Form) by accepting the claim seizure and collection order issued by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2005TTT16349 and collected KRW 17,758,967 on March 8, 2006. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant's claim was extinguished within the above limit.
The plaintiff's assertion is justified to this extent.
After all, Article 1 of the Attached Table 1 provides that "9,241,03 won = 27,000,000 won - 17,758.