beta
Text
1. The designated parties C among the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on January 29, 2015 with respect to the auction auction cases B by the Seoul Western District Court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 14, 2014, the Korea Water Resources Corporation deposited KRW 198,508,110,00 when accepting shares of 3,387/4,969 shares in Gangseo-gu Busan, Busan, and 5,980/6,203 square meters in G 6,203 square meters.
B. The distribution procedure was conducted as Seoul Western District Court B with respect to the above deposit. D applied for the distribution of the claim in the above procedure as a seizure and assignment order (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013TTTTT 2013TT 9653) that was received on the basis of the authentic deed of a promissory note amounting to KRW 25 million. The appointed party C applied for the seizure and assignment order (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013TTT 9652) that was received on the basis of the authentic deed of a promissory note amounting to KRW 95 million. The defendant (appointed party) applied for the seizure and assignment order (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2013TT 2013TT 9929).
C. On January 29, 2015, the said distribution court drafted a distribution schedule of KRW 29,603,571, 23,747,978, 6249, 469, and 3 (wholly designated parties) of the amount of dividends against the Defendant (appointed parties) to the Defendant (appointed parties) as the amount of dividends of KRW 78,508,110, 44, 266 of the amount of dividends against the Defendant (Appointed parties) and dividends of KRW 1,847,592 against the Defendant (Appointed parties).
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3-1, 2, 3, and Evidence No. 12 and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination:
A. The plaintiff asserts that, except that the defendant (appointed party) received dividends in the first order among the above distribution schedule, since the defendant (appointed party) and the designated party (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant, etc.") received dividends based on false claims, the distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.
B. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution in general civil procedure.