2. The plaintiff A's claim is dismissed.

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

A. As to the real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) listed in the attached list owned by the medical corporation, the medical corporation, the Jeonwon Medical Foundation (hereinafter “the medical corporation of this case”), the procedure of the auction of real estate was initiated and initiated with the Suwon District CourtC upon the Defendant’s application as the mortgagee.

B. On May 14, 2015, on the date of distribution, the said auction court prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) stating that KRW 6,706,930,042, which is to be actually distributed after deducting the execution cost, etc. from the proceeds of sale of the instant real estate, shall be first and second, to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service, a person holding the right to demand a distribution, who is the right to demand a distribution, in the order of 153,692,410, and 10,874,930, and 3rd, to the Defendant, who is the person holding the right to demand a distribution and who is the applicant and the creditor holding the right to demand a distribution, the said auction court distributed each of the

C. The plaintiff A and the plaintiff B were employed by the medical corporation of this case and served as a doctor.

The retirement did not receive KRW 5,752,180, which was paid the said wage claim from Plaintiff B, and the demand for distribution was made in the said auction case by asserting that the said wage claim was transferred by Plaintiff B, but did not have been recognized as a priority creditor from the auction court, and did not receive any distribution at all.

Accordingly, Plaintiff A appeared as a person entitled to demand a distribution on the date of the above distribution, and raised an objection against KRW 5,752,180, which is claimed as the amount of the Defendant’s wage claim having priority, among KRW 6,542,362,702, the Defendant’s dividends, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on May 18, 2015, which is within one week thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s judgment on the main safety objection against the Plaintiff B was made on the date of distribution of the instant case and did not raise an objection to the distribution, and thus, the safety objection of the instant case was not the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

A person who has standing to sue a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be present on the date of distribution.