배당이의
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the assignee who acquired the right to collateral security against the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) from the National Bank, which established the right to collateral security of KRW 3,97,500,000 with respect to D’s land for factory and two above ground factories (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).
B. Upon filing an application for a voluntary auction on each of the instant real estate as a collateral security, the Suwon District Court C real estate auction case (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) was initiated. In the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiff was the applicant creditor and the mortgagee, and the Defendants filed a report on the right and demand a distribution as a wage creditor.
C. On January 29, 2016, the executing court: (a) deemed that the Defendants’ wage creditors holding the highest repayment right fall under the first priority order; (b) distributed KRW 39,291,440 to Defendant A; and (c) paid KRW 31,596,00 to Defendant B, respectively; and (d) drafted a distribution schedule that distributes KRW 2,710,821,043 to Defendant B, deeming that the Plaintiff, the first priority mortgagee, falls under the third priority order.
The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and stated an objection against the entire dividend amount among the instant distribution schedule, and filed the instant lawsuit.
[Based on recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. Defendant A is not an employee of E, and Defendant B is a director registered in the corporate registry of E, and is not an employee. Thus, the Defendants cannot be acknowledged as the top priority repayment right based on the premise that the Defendants are employees of E. Thus, the instant distribution schedule was formulated on the premise that the Defendants are employees of E, and thus, the part of the instant distribution schedule against the Defendants in its entirety is unlawful.
B. In the case of Defendant A, this Court shall be the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.