beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The plaintiff is the creditor of the non-party 3's 1st century, and the above gender 3th century is the creditor of the non-party 3.
B. On November 16, 2012, when filing a lawsuit for the purchase price claim with the Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap87777 against C, etc., the Defendant rendered a favorable judgment on November 16, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.
C. On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order with respect to the claim for winning the said judgment, which was held against Nonparty C by Sungwon District Court Branch 2013TTT 5318, as the Defendant issued against Nonparty C.
In addition, on January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order of real estate on the D Yangyang-si, Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gahap87777, which is the claim amounting to KRW 100,000,00, and the claim amount: Suwon District Court Branch Branch Decision 2013TTTT 2013TTT 5318, and the claim amount based on the creditor's subrogation right.
E. On the other hand, on April 21, 2016, C deposited KRW 100,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) with Sungwon District Court Sung-nam Branch as the deposit money for the revocation of the execution of the said provisional seizure on April 21, 2016.
F. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that he/she had a claim of KRW 100,000,00 in relation to C as the District Court Decision 2016TTT 2016TT 7974, and that “A debtor: the Republic of Korea, the amount claimed: KRW 100,000,000, and the object: the object: the right to claim for recovery of the amount deposited in the instant case: the Defendant applied for a collection order, and received a decision of acceptance from the above court on June 8, 2016.
G. Since then, the distribution procedure was conducted on August 25, 2016, on the object of the right to claim the recovery of deposits in the instant case (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”). On August 25, 2016, the said court held that the Plaintiff’s amount of credit was KRW 100,000,000, and the Defendant’s amount of credit was 100,000.