1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is that the pertinent part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the relevant part, and thus, cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of

However, the entry "Defendant Nonghyup Bank" shall be deemed to be "Co-Defendant Nonghyup Bank of the first instance", and "B" shall be deemed to be the Daejeon District Court".

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. A lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution is sought for the modification of a distribution schedule or the preparation of a new distribution schedule in order to reduce the amount distributed to himself/herself by the person who is recorded in the distribution schedule as being distributed to him/her. Therefore, in order for the plaintiff to win a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution, it is not sufficient to prove that the defendant's claim does not exist and to prove that the plaintiff himself/herself has the right to receive dividends from the defendant. The defendant did not raise an objection against the plaintiff on the date of distribution.

Even if the plaintiff's claim can be rejected, the existence of the plaintiff's claim itself can be denied.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da42259 Decided July 12, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da53790 Decided April 23, 2015, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da53790).

1) Whether the Plaintiff has the right to receive dividends from the Plaintiff is entitled to receive dividends from the Defendant in accordance with the assignment order of the two claims (Seoul District Court 2015TTTTT 51906, 2015TT 53046) and one collection order of the seizure of claims ( Daejeon District Court 2016TTT 50459) in the above basic facts. The Plaintiff has the right to receive dividends from the Defendant in the distribution procedure that was proceeding A with the Daejeon District Court (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”).

On the other hand, prior to the above seizure assignment order or seizure collection order, there was a transfer of claim (hereinafter “transfer of claim of this case”) between Maam Construction and Haam Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) regarding the dividend claim of this case.

Even if so, Article 450 of the Civil Code is applicable.