[Judgment of the court below]

Law Firm Rod, Attorney Lee Rodon

[Defendant-Appellee]

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

each payment of the money under this subsection.

A. As to seven parcels of real estate in total, including 9,303 square meters of land for factory, etc.* 9,303 square meters of land for a factory

On December 12, 2011, the auction procedure was commenced by Daejeon District Court Decision 201Mo24289, Daejeon District Court. The completion period for demand for distribution in the auction procedure was as of February 29, 2012, and the Plaintiffs did not file an application for demand for distribution not later than the end of the period for demand for distribution.

B. The land is located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun* * 19,513 square meters in total for four parcels of real estate, including 19,513 square meters in forests and fields.

5.2. Around 2012, Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court 2012Ma6654), the auction procedure was commenced, and around 24289 was consolidated with the auction procedure at around the same date. The Plaintiffs filed an application for distribution on July 10, 2012, which was prior to July 18, 2012, the completion period to demand distribution of the auction procedure at the Daejeon District Court 201tagi654.

C. In the Daejeon District Court No. 2011Hu24289, 2012, and 6654 (Consolidation), the Plaintiffs received only dividends from the successful bid price of Daejeon District Court No. 201Hu24289 (Joint) and did not receive dividends from Daejeon District Court No. 2012, 201Hu24289 (Joint).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs, even though they did not demand a distribution in the auction procedure of Daejeon District Court No. 201ta-24289, the top priority wage and retirement allowance creditor, should receive a distribution from the successful bid price in the above auction procedure. Therefore, the Plaintiffs, even though they received a total of KRW 172,405,01 in the procedure of Daejeon District Court No. 201ta-201, No. 24289, No. 2012, No. 6654 (Joint) around 2012, did not receive a dividend of KRW 82,447,753, and did not receive the remainder of KRW 89,957,258. Since the Defendant received the said amount, the Plaintiffs sought a return of unjust enrichment [Attachment 2] as the amount indicated in the table of the claim amount stated in [Attachment 2], and damages for delay.

B. Determination

A creditor demanding a distribution under Article 88(1) of the Civil Execution Act may receive a distribution only when he/she has made a demand for distribution by the deadline for the completion of the demand for distribution, and in cases where he/she has not made a lawful demand for distribution, even though he/she is the creditor having the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under substantive Acts, such as wage claims, cannot receive a distribution from the proceeds of the successful bid. Therefore, if the creditor demanding a distribution fails to make a lawful demand for distribution, and the distribution has been prepared and confirmed by the distribution schedule as excluded from the distribution, and the distribution has been conducted in accordance with the final distribution schedule, if he/she has made a lawful demand for distribution, it shall not be deemed that there is no legal ground, since the amount equivalent to the amount that he/she could receive a distribution was distributed to the subordinate creditor (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Da28304, Dec. 20, 196; 96Da10263, Feb. 25, 1997, etc.).

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion that even if the demand for distribution was not made, the preferred wage and retirement allowance creditor can make a claim for the return of unjust enrichment against the subordinate creditor who received the dividend amount that would have been entitled to the dividend in the distribution procedure if he had received the demand for distribution.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.