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
1. The reasoning of the judgment and this part of the plaintiff's assertion in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) "Plaintiffs" in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as "Plaintiffs and Co-Plaintiffs B"; (b) "Plaintiff A" as "Plaintiffs," and (c) "Plaintiff B" as "Co-Plaintiff B of the court of first instance"; and (d) two to seven pages 1 of the six pages shall be read as "Therefore, the plaintiff, therefore, shall be deemed to have received dividends of KRW 142,935,580 among the excess dividends related to the seeking fisheries, and KRW 5,760,590 among the excess dividends related to the U.S. Y., and shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act."
2. Determination
A. In an auction procedure for exercising a security right to the scope of the Defendant’s claim, where an applicant filed an application for auction with only a part of the secured claim as the claim amount, barring any other special circumstance, the claim amount of the applicant creditor shall be determined within the scope of the claim amount stated in the application for auction, and thereafter, the claim amount may not be extended by the method such as expanding the claim amount and submitting it to the applicant creditor. However, even though the applicant creditor indicated in the application for auction in general the incidental claim such as the principal and damages for delay as the claim amount as the claim amount, and later specified the amount of the incidental claim in the account statement by the claim settlement, it shall be allowed because it is only to clarify the basis and scope of the claim amount stated in general in the application for auction, and it shall not be deemed as not permitted because it falls under the expansion of the claim amount. It does not purport to prevent the applicant creditor from extending the claim amount by means of increasing the incidental claim amount
Supreme Court Decision 2007Da14933 Decided May 11, 2007 and Supreme Court Decision 8 December 201.