beta
Text
1. In relation to the case of Ku Government District Court, the District Court,B dividend procedure, the above Court, as of June 23, 2016.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) on January 20, 2016, the Korea Recycled Resources Distribution Support Center Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).
(2) On February 19, 2016, the Defendant issued a provisional seizure and collection order (2016TTT 1996) against C’s right to claim payment of deposit money against C in the future amounting to KRW 99,240,301 (2). On February 19, 2016, the Defendant received a provisional seizure and collection order (2016TT 2325) against C’s right to claim payment of deposit money (2016T 2325).
B. In the process of distributing dividends on the deposit money (this court B), the judicial assistant officer prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the amount of KRW 99,237,977 on June 23, 2016 was distributed pro rata in proportion to the amount of claim 70,754,681 won reported by the Plaintiff and the amount of claim 650,000,000 won reported by the Defendant, and the amount of claim 650,000 won as reported by the Defendant.
Accordingly, the amount of KRW 9,741,944 (9,8175%) against the plaintiff and KRW 89,496,033 (90.183%) against the defendant was determined as the amount of each dividend.
C. The Plaintiff raised an objection to a distribution and the instant lawsuit of demurrer on the date of distribution on the same date, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 28, 2016, which was seven days after the said date.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4-1 and 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. 1) The key issues are as follows: (a) in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff has to assert and prove the facts constituting the grounds for objection against distribution; (b) so, the obligee who has filed an application of objection against distribution by asserting that the other party’s claim is disguised, bears the burden of proof as to this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da32178, Nov. 14, 1997). (c) According to the foregoing recognition, the amount of claim against C reported to the court by the Defendant is 650,000