beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendant are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On April 30, 2013, E borrowed KRW 40,000 from the Plaintiffs, and issued one promissory note with “amount of 40,000,000,000” and “the issuer E and the Plaintiffs” on June 20, 2013, and a notary public, stating the terms of accepting compulsory execution based on the said promissory note, drafted a notarized deed No. 594, 2013.
B. On May 4, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed an application for a compulsory auction on real estate Article G 102 owned by E based on the instant promissory note No. 102, and the Seoul Western District Court DD rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on real estate.
C. In the above auction procedure, on January 28, 2016, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with respect to KRW 228,343,482 of the amount to be actually distributed as follows:
[Attachment Table of this case] The amount of dividends distributed to creditors of Eunpyeong-gu 200,4401 (the pertinent tax, etc.) 200,440 Seoul Livestock Industry Cooperatives 151,060,060,4112-mortgage 151,458,100 Plaintiffs 40,000,000 40,000 40,914,474,474,850,000 for 444,710,000 provisional attachment right holder 228,343,4843,482,482 of the amount of dividends distributed to creditors (public charges)
D. The Plaintiffs appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection against the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on February 3, 2016, which was within seven days thereafter.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Although the plaintiffs' assertion that they are not true creditors of E, the defendant applied for distribution to E in the case of compulsory auction of real estate D with Seoul Western District Court DD as if there were loan claims of KRW 57,850,000 to E using false loan certificates, etc.
Nevertheless, on January 28, 2016, the above court made a distribution schedule by judging the defendant as a genuine creditor.
3. Determination
A. The grounds for objection against the distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution by the relevant legal doctrine are relevant.