Whether an action of objection against the distribution schedule may be brought in case where a written objection against the distribution schedule has been submitted to the executing court, but the objection is not present on the date of distribution, or the written objection has not been

Since an objection against the distribution schedule may be raised only by oral statement and the written objection is not permitted, even if the creditor submitted the written objection in advance to the court of execution, if the objection is not present on the date of distribution or is present at the court of execution, the objection may not be raised as a lawsuit of objection against the distribution schedule.

Article 591(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Hong-il, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na1033 delivered on September 27, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the person who can become the plaintiff of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be the creditor who has filed an objection against the claims of other creditors by attending the date of distribution and raising an objection against the existence, scope, priority, etc. Therefore, even if the person was present on the date of distribution, the court below rejected the lawsuit of this case on the ground that not only the creditor who did not file an objection, but also the creditor who did not submit a written objection prior to the date of distribution to the court and did not state the above document on the date of distribution could not file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on the date of distribution, although the plaintiff submitted a written statement (Evidence A No. 25) to the court to the effect that an objection against a request for distribution by the defendant in the Republic of Korea could not be brought a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, on the ground that the plaintiff did not raise an objection on

However, Article 591(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that creditors who have failed to appear on the date of distribution shall be deemed to have consented to the implementation of the distribution schedule. In light of this provision, creditors who have failed to appear on the date of distribution shall appear on the date of distribution in order to raise an objection against the distribution schedule. In other words, creditors who have failed to appear on the date of distribution shall be deemed not to be able to raise an objection against the claims of other creditors in writing. In other words, even if the creditors submitted the written objection in advance to the court of execution, even if the creditors were not present on the date of distribution or were present on the date of distribution, the creditors shall be deemed not to have raised an objection, and those who have not appeared on the date of distribution and failed to raise an objection shall be deemed to have consented to the implementation of the distribution schedule, and shall not be deemed to have the ability to file an objection against the distribution schedule.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful in the case of this case that the plaintiff was present on the date of distribution of this case and did not state the written objection already submitted by himself is just and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit in the judgment below. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)