배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. In the case of voluntary auction of A real estate in Ulsan District Court A, on August 26, 2016, the said court prepared a distribution schedule to distribute to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 690,175,606, excluding other senior creditors, the remainder of KRW 690,175,606, to the Defendant, the subrogated wage obligee who paid substitute payment, out of KRW 6,725,05,05,705, which deducts execution expenses, out of the proceeds of sale.
B. The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection to the amount distributed to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of the instant case within the period of filing a lawsuit.
[Reasons for Recognition] A.1-3 Evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Assertion and determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the substitute payment made by the defendant against the wage obligee B includes KRW 1,439,579, which is excluded from the scope of the right of priority payment. Among these substitute payments made by the defendant, the portion of KRW 1,254,730, excluding KRW 184,849, which was returned by the agreement from B, should not be distributed to the defendant and be distributed to the plaintiff. Thus, the distribution schedule of this case should be revised like the purport of the claim.
B. Examining all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the annual allowance was included in B’s substitute payment.
C. Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the amount of the delayed payment exceeds KRW 1,466,420, retirement allowances exceeding KRW 2,348,000,000 in total; however, the Defendant can only recognize the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 3,00,000 in total, including the amount of wages 1,140,000, retirement allowances, and retirement allowances 1,860,000 as substitute payment corresponding to the top priority repayment right, respectively.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.