beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is accepted by the court, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of paragraph (2) below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4
Distribution of dividends in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is illegal in the defendant's summary of the judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety as to the addition and revision
Even if the amount to be distributed to the Plaintiff is not increased due to such increase, such cause may not be a ground for filing a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution seeking an increase in the amount of dividends. As alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant’s acquisition of the right to collateral security by transfer of the Seongbuk Saemaul Bank’s claim becomes invalid due to the violation of the Act on Registration of Credit Business, etc. and Protection of Finance Users, etc., and thus, dividends against the Defendant who acquired the right to claim as above are illegal, as long as the aforementioned collateral itself becomes effective, the amount of dividends distributed to the Defendant is distributed to the Saemaul Bank, which is the original collateral security, and the Plaintiff’s amount of dividends, which
Judgment
On the other hand, a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution filed by a creditor is to resolve the dispute surrounding the amount of distribution among the creditors who are the opposing parties, and the judgment of the lawsuit is to change the ownership of the distribution portion relative to the creditors who are the original and the defendant. Therefore, in a case where it is deemed that the defendant's claims do not exist, it is unnecessary to consider the claims of other creditors who did not raise an objection when calculating the amount of distribution reverted to the plaintiff among the distribution portion in the dispute (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da3818, May 22, 1998; 2016Da13383, Jul. 29, 2016). Accordingly, the prior defendant's assertion on a different premise is without merit.
The revised part of the judgment of the court of first instance was 2 pages.