1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the parties’ assertion, is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the corresponding part of the judgment below, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “Defendant C” of the corresponding part of the judgment of first instance; “Defendant B Co., Ltd.” to “Defendant B Co., Ltd. of the first instance trial”; and “Defendant

The court of first instance held that “The appeal is pending in the final appeal by the Supreme Court Decision 2019Da244027)” in the fifth fifth fiveth sentence of the judgment shall be construed as “The appeal against the objection was lodged (Supreme Court Decision 2019Da244027) and the appeal was withdrawn on September 2019.”

"The appeal is pending in the appellate court as Seoul Central District Court 2018Na67239, Seoul Central District Court 2018Na67239)" in the 8th to the 9th of the judgment of the first instance, "The appeal was lodged against the objection (Seoul Central District Court 2018Na67239) and the judgment dismissing the appeal was rendered on September 6, 2019."

Judgment

A lawsuit of demurrer against 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 reducing the amount distributed to a person entered in the distribution schedule. Therefore, in order for the plaintiff to win in the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff is not sufficient to assert and prove that there is no claim of the defendant in order for him/her to win in the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and it is necessary to assert and prove

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da42259 Decided July 12, 2012, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da53790 Decided April 23, 2015). Meanwhile, in cases where a debtor disposes of his/her claims before the seizure of claims takes effect, even if there are circumstances that make it impossible for the creditor to oppose the seizure prior to the seizure of claims, the creditor who participated in the execution after the disposition may oppose the validity of the disposition against the creditor who participated in the execution after the seizure of claims. Therefore, the debtor’s claims subject to seizure or provisional seizure may be asserted.