(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.01.12 2016나306953

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) 대구지방법원 2017.01.12 2016나306953

추심금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, given that the part of “1. Recognition” among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance (including the attached Form) is the same as that of “1. Recognition” (including the modification of the three parts), this is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fifth part of the fifth part of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the Busan Busan District Court" as "the Dong Branch of the Busan District Court".

B. On October 26, 2015, the first instance court's 5th 12 to 16th 2) part of the first instance court's 5th 12 to 16th 16th 2015, A filed a claim for withdrawal of the remaining 38,314,349 won out of the claim for withdrawal of the above dividends ( earned surplus) transferred to A by the judgment revoking the fraudulent act. On the same day, the chief clerk of the said court issued to the above deposit officer a written entrustment of payment stating "A, 38,314,349 won", and accordingly, the deposit official paid to A the entire remaining dividends on the same day (38,288,243 won deposit interest rate of KRW 26,106).

(c)each entry of Category 1 to 16 of Category 5 of the first instance judgment (including the number of pages, hereinafter the same shall apply) shall be read as “each entry of Category 1 to 16 (including the number of pages, hereinafter the same shall apply), and Category 1, 2, and 3”.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the court of execution deposited dividends under Article 160 of the Civil Execution Act, and the procedure of withdrawal following the extinction of the reason for the deposit shall be sent by the court of execution to the deposit official, and accordingly the deposit official shall be appointed by the court of execution to the deposit official. The deposit official shall, as the assistant of the court of execution, pay the deposit to the creditor without a separate hearing as to

In other words, even if this was made by the withdrawal procedure of the form deposit, the substance of it is the creditor.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-민사집행법 제160조

유사 판례

-서울민사지법 1987. 9. 17. 선고 87가합3269 제12부판결 : 확정

-대구지방법원 2016.12.08 2016나304797

-대법원 2002. 8. 27. 선고 2001다73107 판결

-대구고등법원 2017.02.03 2016누5526

-대구고등법원 2016.12.23 2016누5489