1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Basic Facts

On April 5, 2013, Nonparty D (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) deposited 50,526,270 won with the Seoul Central District Court 201Hun-2,1031, the distribution procedure was implemented as Seoul Central District CourtC on April 5, 2013 (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”).

The Plaintiff, as a provisional seizure right holder for the right to claim a deposit of the non-party company, demanded a distribution in the instant distribution procedure, and the Defendant, as a wage creditor, made a demand for distribution in the instant distribution procedure.

After determining the amount to be actually distributed in the distribution procedure of this case as KRW 50,472,040, the above court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the Defendant distributes the amount of KRW 38,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and KRW 5,428,376 to the Plaintiff, respectively, (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”).

The Plaintiff raised an objection to the distribution against the Defendant on the date of the said distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on April 12, 2013, which was seven days thereafter.

On the other hand, on January 8, 2013, the non-party company filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Seoul Central District Court 2013hap8, and was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures from the above court on February 4, 2013 (hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedures”), but the said rehabilitation procedures were abolished on October 16, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff defendant is not a worker of the non-party company, and even if the defendant is a worker of the non-party company, since the defendant was paid all wages, the distribution schedule of this case, which was distributed in the first order by judging the defendant as a wage obligee, should be corrected

The Defendant, while working in the non-party company on May 31, 2010, retired from office on or around May 31, 201, but was not paid KRW 98,250,000 (=retirement 48,750,000 wages of KRW 49,50,000).

(2) On the other hand, the non-party company performs field management duties to the Defendant at the site of the building work in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction work”).