Plaintiff (Attorney Yang Byung-jin, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. The term "standard company" means a company specializing in the arms-backed securitization (Law Firm Pung Law, Attorney Jeon-Un et al.

July 16, 2008

Suwon District Court Decision 2007Gadan17426 Decided November 1, 2007

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit are borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Purport of claim

The amount of dividends of KRW 1,137,312,069 against the defendant among the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on February 21, 2007 with respect to the auction case of real estate rent in Suwon District Court 2006, the amount of dividends of KRW 37,494,707 won against the plaintiff (the appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") shall be corrected to KRW 60,040,101 won, respectively.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 1, 2 and 3, the plaintiff submitted to the executing court the report of rights and a request for distribution as to the total amount of 92,694,314 won in the wages of the designated parties stated in the separate sheet as the wage creditors against the debtor and owners on September 11, 2006, before the completion period for demand for distribution of the real estate auction case No. 2006, No. 21124, Sep. 11, 2006 ( September 12, 2006). The plaintiff submitted a claim statement to the executing court on January 22, 2007, the plaintiff did not submit to the defendant the above wage claim No. 92,694,314 won in addition to the above wage claim No. 92, 32,545 and 394 won in addition to the above wage claim No. 365,3074,275.

The plaintiff filed a report on the right to wage claim and the demand for distribution include the amount related to the retirement allowance claim within the scope of the amount of the demand for distribution, but it is unlawful that the execution court excludes the retirement allowance claim from the distribution. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks to revise the distribution schedule by reducing the amount equivalent to the retirement allowance claim recognized as the preferential repayment claim among the amount of dividends against the defendant.

Therefore, in the event that an execution creditor for a large-scale execution or a creditor required to demand a distribution fails to do so by the deadline for requesting a distribution as a matter of course under Article 148 subparag. 1, 3, and 4 of the Civil Execution Act, and the creditor required to demand a distribution fails to do so by the deadline for requesting a distribution, a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under substantive Acts cannot be entitled to a distribution even if he/she is the creditor, and in the case where the creditor required to demand a distribution only by the amount of a part of the claim, the right not to demand a distribution shall not be added or expanded after the deadline for requesting a distribution expires (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Da11055, Jan. 25, 2002; 205Da14595, Aug

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s demand for distribution of a retirement allowance claim is included in the Plaintiff’s demand for distribution of a retirement allowance claim, as well as the Plaintiff’s demand for distribution based on a different view, in light of the following: (a) the wage claim for the last three months and the retirement allowance claim for the last three years, which are acknowledged as having preferential right to payment; and (b) the retirement allowance claim

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per

[Omission of List of Appointed]

Judge final (Presiding Judge) Professor Jong-nam, Kim Jong-chul