배당이의
1. As to the instant case of distribution procedure C in this Court, this Court against the Defendant out of the distribution schedule prepared on April 5, 2013.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff demanded the distribution of dividends to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) who is the debtor in the instant court C distribution procedure as a provisional seizure authority.
B. On April 5, 2013, on the date of distribution open on April 5, 2013, this Court drafted a distribution schedule with the content that distributes the amount of KRW 38 million to the Defendant, who is a wage obligee, KRW 491,840 in the first order; KRW 491,840 in the second order to Ansan-si; and KRW 5,428,376 in the third order to the Plaintiff and Nonparty E, respectively.
C. The Plaintiff raised an objection to the distribution of dividends to the Defendant and brought the instant lawsuit.
The rehabilitation was commenced on February 4, 2013 by this Court No. 2013hap8, but the rehabilitation procedure was abolished on October 16 of the same year.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 17, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant did not have a wage creditor or did not have a unpaid wage but has participated in the distribution falsely. The defendant retired from the non-party company on May 31, 2010, but from around May 10, 201, when managing tin work at the same soil site as the non-party company, the non-party company provided labor with the wage of KRW 3.8 million per month. However, the plaintiff did not receive wages of KRW 38 million for ten months from that time until March 10, 2012.
B. It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was unable to receive wages of 38 million won as the employee of the non-party company solely on the basis of the descriptions of the health care unit and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including paper numbers) with respect to whether the unpaid wages of 38 million won were paid as the employee of the non-party company, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
① While the Defendant was registered as a director of the non-party company, and did not prepare any written contract while receiving KRW 3.8 million monthly benefit from the non-party company. ② The Defendant continued to receive KRW 2.6 million from May 10, 201 to March 10, 2012, to receive KRW 3 million from the non-party company (Evidence 20,000).