beta
(영문) 대법원 2015.04.23 2013다86403

배당이의

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where the debtor raises an objection against the distribution schedule prepared in the distribution procedure, the creditor himself/herself who has an executory exemplification of executive titles, namely, the creditor who has raised an objection as to the existence of claims or the scope of claims, shall exclude the executory power of executive titles. Therefore, a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim shall be filed and a lawsuit of demurrer against

(Article 154(2) of the Civil Execution Act. A judgment with a declaration of provisional execution may not file a lawsuit of demurrer against a claim unless the judgment becomes final and conclusive (Article 44(1) of the Civil Execution Act). However, an obligor may, by appeal, exclude the executory power of the judgment by disputing the existence or scope of the claim, and may receive a decision to suspend execution. Thus, a lawsuit of demurrer against a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution cannot be filed, on the ground that an obligor cannot bring a lawsuit of demurrer against a creditor who has an authentic copy of the judgment, in order to challenge the existence

In addition, where a debtor raises an objection against the distribution of a claim priority rather than the creditor's claim itself, i.e., distribution of the claim prior to the creditor's claim, the debtor's objection is premised on the premise that the above "other creditor" falls under the creditor entitled to receive dividends pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Execution Act. Since the creditor who does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 148 of the Civil Execution Act and is unable to participate in the distribution cannot raise an objection against the distribution schedule, the debtor cannot file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on the ground that the above creditor's claim that he

2. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court and the record, this case’s real estate owned by the Plaintiff on the basis of the original judgment declaring provisional execution against the Plaintiff by the Defendants.