In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the burden of proof

In a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution, where the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff did not establish the defendant's claim, the defendant is responsible to prove the fact of the cause of the claim, and where the plaintiff claims that the claim has become null and void as a false conspiracy or extinguished by payment, the plaintiff is responsible to prove the fact

2012 grouped 11893 Demurrer against distribution

AAA Corporation

1.Korea 2.B

September 25, 2013

October 16, 2013

1. From among the distribution schedule prepared by this Court on September 26, 2012, the amount of dividend OOOO on the plaintiff shall be changed to the amount of dividend OOOO on the plaintiff, and the amount of dividend OOOOOO on the defendant BB shall be changed to the amount of OOOO in each of the distribution schedule prepared by the Daejeon District Court, Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court, 2012.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea and the remaining claims against the defendant BB shall be dismissed in entirety.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant BB shall be borne by the plaintiff, respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

In the Daejeon District Court's Seosan Branch 2012 Seosan 94 real estate compulsory auction case, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff among the dividend table prepared by this court on September 26, 2012 shall be corrected to delete the amount of dividends to the plaintiff, and the amount of dividends to the defendant Republic of Korea and the amount of dividends to the defendant BB, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 18, 2012, the defendant Republic of Korea requested the delivery of OOOO in total amount of the unpaid value-added tax for the real estate for the year 192 and the year 1993, and the defendant BB filed a claim against the plaintiff for delivery of OOOO in total the aggregate amount of the unpaid value-added tax for the real estate for the year 1992 and 193, and the defendant BB filed a claim against the plaintiff for delivery of the aggregate aggregate of the aggregate land tax for the year 195 through 1997 and the unpaid property tax for the year 2008 through 2012.

B. On September 26, 2012, the auction court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount to be actually distributed to the Defendants, including OOOO members, and OOO members, in the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, who is the holder of the right to deliver the amount on the date of distribution, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 2, 2012, which stated an objection against the Defendants on the said date of distribution.

[Ground of Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the grounds for the claim

(a) Grounds for claims;

The plaintiff asserts that the distribution schedule should be revised because the total sum of the unpaid value added tax requested by the defendant Republic of Korea and the total sum of the unpaid aggregate of the aggregate land tax and the property tax (land) requested by the defendant BB and the total sum of the unpaid amount of the property tax (land).

B. Determination

(1) Determination as to Defendant Republic of Korea’s claim

In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution is in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. In case where the plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim has not been constituted, the defendant is liable to prove the facts of the cause of the claim, and in case where the plaintiff claims that the claim has been invalidated as a false agreement or extinguished as a result of repayment, the plaintiff is liable to prove the facts constituting the grounds for disability or extinguishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da

In this case, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff paid the unpaid value added tax to the defendant's Republic of Korea, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea is without merit.

(2) Determination as to the claim against Defendant BB

(A) In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff may assert the grounds that occurred after the date of distribution and until the date of closing argument in the fact-finding court. As such, even in a case where the amount of claims at the time of Defendant BB extinguished in part due to repayment, etc. during the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution after the date of distribution, and the remaining amount of claims falls short of such claim amount, it can be asserted as the grounds for objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da27427, Aug. 23,

(B) According to Gap evidence No. 10, while the plaintiff was found to have paid the property tax for 2012 on October 2, 2012, which was after the date of the instant distribution, and further, property tax (i) 001940, and (ii) 051 051 1996, and (iii) 053706 006 1997, and 003 003 003 209 O209 O200 O2010 O2010 O200, and 2010 O29 O200 O200 O200 , and 2010 O200 O200 , and 2010 O200 O20

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant BB is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.