배당이의등
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties that the Defendants did not work as an instructor from G, and thus, the Defendants did not have the right to receive dividends from each of the money stated in the claim claim in the instant distribution procedure based on the wage claim, and the same does not apply to interpreters.
Even if the Defendants received dividends in excess of the amount of legitimate wage claims, they claim that the instant distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.
As to this, the defendants did not receive wages as employees employed by G and did not participate in the dividends of this case. They asserted that the distribution schedule of this case is justifiable.
2. A lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is sought for the modification of a distribution schedule or the preparation of a new distribution schedule in order to reduce the amount distributed to himself/herself by reducing the amount distributed to a person entered in the distribution schedule. Thus, in order for the plaintiff to win the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff is not sufficient to assert and prove that there is no claim of the defendant in order to win the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and the plaintiff has the right to receive dividends to the defendant. The defendant did not raise any objection against the plaintiff on the date of distribution.
Even if the plaintiff's claim can be rejected, the existence of the plaintiff's claim itself can be denied.
(2) According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 11 through 13, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the present education Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “on-site education”) on September 24, 2012 to pay the fee to the Plaintiff while the Plaintiff was in office as the representative director of G, and the present education agreed to pay the fee to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff worked as an instructor from the present on-site education around that time. On the other hand, G agreed to pay the Plaintiff 33% of the tuition fee for the Plaintiff’s lecture in accordance with the Plaintiff’s lecture agreement.