Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant judgment and the conciliation protocol are assigned to the assignee of the claim, and the Defendant submitted an application for succession to the creditor of the instant compulsory auction procedure. However, on November 28, 2011, the Defendant rescinded the assignment contract of the instant case and returned the claim to H, and accordingly, the Defendant did not have any claim entitled to dividends at all.

However, since the Plaintiffs had the instant loans and the claims to return the lease deposit against H, the Plaintiffs raised an objection to the Defendant by subrogationing H. Of the instant dividends, KRW 90 million should be distributed to H.

3. A person who is qualified to sue a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall appear on the date of distribution and raise an objection as to the distribution schedule, and the creditor or the debtor shall appear on the date of distribution and make an objection as to the substantive objection as to the distribution schedule. In order for the creditor to make an objection as to the distribution schedule, the creditor against the executory debtor under substantive laws alone shall have been insufficient, and the legitimate distribution should have been made by the completion date of the demand for distribution. The creditor who did not lawfully demand distribution shall not have the right to make an objection as to the distribution schedule, and even if such person appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection as to the distribution schedule, even if he did not have the right to raise an objection as to the distribution schedule, this is unlawful, and there

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da27696, Aug. 22, 2003). Meanwhile, the obligee is the obligee only when the obligor does not exercise the right against the third obligor.