[2] Whether a debtor can file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on the ground that the debtor does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 148 of the Civil Execution Act and does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 148, and thus the creditor'

[2] In a case where the debtor raises an objection against the distribution of dividends in preference to the creditor's claim's priority, that is, the debtor's claim's priority, etc., such 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. However, 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. Thus, the debtor cannot file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on the ground that the debtor should distribute the creditor's claim that is not

1. In a case where a debtor raises an objection to the distribution schedule prepared in the distribution procedure, the creditor himself/herself who has an executory exemplification of the executory title, namely, the creditor who has raised an objection to the existence of a claim or the scope of the claim, and the debtor who has raised an objection to the existence or the scope of the executory title, is not entitled to file a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution (Article 154(2) of the Civil Execution Act). A judgment with a declaration of provisional execution cannot be brought an action of demurrer against a claim unless the judgment becomes final and conclusive (Article 44(1) of the Civil Execution Act). However, the debtor may exclude the executory power of the judgment by disputing the existence or the scope of the claim and may be subject to a decision of stay of execution, on the grounds that the debtor cannot file a lawsuit of objection against the judgment with a final and conclusive executory judgment, and thus, the debtor cannot bring an objection against a distribution against

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 the distribution pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Execution Act. Since a creditor who does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 148 of the Civil Execution Act and does not 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 debtor should distribute the claim of the above creditor who

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as cited by the court below and the records, the procedure for compulsory auction of this case on the real estate owned by the plaintiff on the basis of the original copy of the judgment declaring provisional execution against the plaintiff by the defendants, and the director of the Seocho District Office filed a request for delivery to the court of execution after the completion date of the period for demanding distribution after the registration of the above decision of compulsory auction, and only after the completion date of the registration of the above decision of compulsory auction, the director of the Seocho District Office filed a request for a seizure with the court of execution. The court of execution

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, a debtor, cannot file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against the Defendants, who are creditors having an authentic copy of the judgment declaring provisional execution, in order to dispute the existence of such claims or the scope thereof. Furthermore, a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution may not be filed on the ground that the State does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 148 of the Civil Execution Act and does not participate in the distribution because it does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 148 of the same Act, and the Plaintiff, a debtor and the State may not file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on the ground that the Plaintiff,

Therefore, the lower court’s determination that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendants was unlawful is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the allowable scope of a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution, the pertinent prior priority principle, etc

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)