Busan District Court 2012 Gohap7932 (O1, 2013)

The grounds for the plaintiffs' objection to distribution are groundless.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit since it is for the repayment of secured debt of the right to collateral security regarding the above ship, separate from the freight claim.

2013Na50787 Demurrer against distribution

1. RoA 2. RoB

1. Korea-CC 2. Korea

Busan District Court Decision 2012Gahap7932 Decided April 11, 2013

November 14, 2013

November 28, 2013

1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Appointeds) against the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The judgment of the first instance court is revoked.1) In the first instance court's decision is revoked. (1) In the distribution schedule prepared by the above court with respect to the dividends in the distribution procedure case of Busan District Court 2012TY 537, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party), the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party), the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party), the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party), the amount of OOOOOO, the amount of dividends to the defendant Han-CC, the amount of dividends to the defendant in Korea shall be corrected to the amount of OOOOO, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party) in the above distribution schedule prepared by the above court in relation to the dividends in the above distribution procedure case, such amount of dividends shall be corrected to the amount of dividends as OOO, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party), the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party), the amount of dividends to the plaintiff (appointed party), OOO and the amount to the defendant Korea.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

This Court's decision is based on the reasoning of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the part of "decision on the assertion of performance" in Section 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts:

Parts used in bulk

“B. Judgment on the Claim for Performance

According to Gap evidence 7 and Eul evidence 3, although it is recognized that D. 200 million won was paid to defendant 1CC on November 24, 201, it is insufficient to acknowledge that D. 200 million won was paid to defendant 2's above D. D. 2's above D. D. 2's loan charges for D. 2's E.O. 2's E.C. 1's 4-1's 7's 4's 7's 7's 4's 7's 7's 7's 2's 7's 7's 7's 7's 7's 7's 2's 4's 4's 4's 'O''''. Rather, it is not reasonable to acknowledge that D. 1's 2's 'O''s 2's 'O''s 2''s '4'''''s ''''''''''s 7'2'o '2's '7'o '4'.'6'''''.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.