(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.06.15 2016가단75282

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 안산지원 2018.06.15 2016가단75282

배당이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 20, 2014, the Defendant received a collection order for the seizure and collection of KRW 200,026,850 as D as the debtor, and as the third debtor, E as the third debtor, and the Plaintiff received a collection order for the seizure and collection of KRW 1,260,612,948 as the claim amount against the same debtor and the third debtor on May 24, 2016 (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”). Each seizure and collection order was served on the third debtor at that time.

B. E deposited KRW 534,427,191 as the Suwon District Court Ansan Branch 2016No. 2344, which was deposited in the distribution procedure (U.S. District Court’s Ansan Branch C) accordingly, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 534,416,541, which was the date of distribution, to the original and the Defendant who is the creditor, after deducting the execution expenses from the deposit and interest on December 14, 2016, the date of distribution, as follows:

Distribution-oriented creditors (sources) 1 Defendant 200,026,850, 73,185,50,5031 Plaintiffs 1,260,612,948, 461,231,038, totaling 534,416,541

C. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised the instant lawsuit on December 20, 2016, which was within one week thereafter, against the entire amount distributed to the Defendant.

On the other hand, the debtor D, on the same date of distribution, has raised an objection to the whole amount of dividends to the plaintiff, and thereafter filed an objection suit against the plaintiff (U.S. District Court 2016Gahap2720, hereinafter "the objection suit of this case").

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 7 and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant prepared a notarial deed by pretending that there was a claim of KRW 200 million against D, even though there was no claim against D, and received a seizure and collection order based on the title of execution.

Therefore, it is true.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.06.12 2014가단13723

-전주지방법원 정읍지원 2017.01.12 2016가단1784

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.04.26 2017가단55805

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.11.23 2016가단9599

-수원지방법원 2020.12.22 2020나50294