beta
Case Number of the immediately preceding lawsuit
Seoul Central District Court-2015-Na-49524 ( January 20, 2017)
Title
Distribution order due to dividends after the attachment becomes effective;
Summary
In light of the fact that the Plaintiff neglected the registration of mortgage transfer for five years even if the secured debt was acquired by transfer from the delinquent taxpayer, since the secured debt is deemed to have been separated and extinguished after transfer, the lower court’s holding that distributing dividends to the Defendant as it cannot be set up against the Defendant’s seizure is reasonable.
Related statutes
Article 154 (Lawsuit of Demurrer, etc. against Distribution)
Cases
2017Da23204
Plaintiff-Appellant
AA Stock Company
Defendant-Appellee
Korea
Judgment of the lower court
Seoul Central District Court 2015Na49524
Imposition of Judgment
December 28, 2017
Text
The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected all the allegations that the Defendant’s seizure of the instant secured claim against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, i.e., the Defendant’s assertion that the instant secured claim against the instant secured claim was made after the instant secured claim and the secured claim were transferred to the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and that the Defendant’s seizure cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, and that the Defendant’s seizure is null and void due to the lack of tax claims, etc., and thus,
Examining the record in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, in so determining, by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subsidiary nature of a mortgage, the establishment and effect of a seizure, and the legal doctrine on
Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.