[1] In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution where the defendant's claim amount exceeds the dividend amount, and in a case where the remaining claim amount becomes short of the claim amount of provisional seizure due to partial extinguishment of the claim amount by the creditor of provisional seizure during the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution due to the repayment, etc., whether the plaintiff may assert it as a ground for objection (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in case where, in the auction procedure, the distribution schedule was prepared on the basis of the claim amount of provisional seizure by the creditor of provisional seizure, but thereafter, the creditor of provisional seizure was distributed at the auction procedure of other real estate in the process of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution and the remaining claim amount falls short of the above claim amount of provisional seizure, the

[1] Since a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution does not relate to the existence and scope of the claims of each creditor who received a dividend, and it does not relate to the dividend order, even if the amount of claims received by the defendant in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution exceeds the dividend amount, there is a dispute as to the amount of claims that served as the basis of the dividend. In the event the amount of claims has decreased, if the dividend amount has decreased, and as a result, the amount of dividends has decreased in accordance with the legal principles on the distribution under the Civil Execution Act, the distribution may be raised. On the other hand, in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the plaintiff may assert the grounds arising from the time when the amount of claims by the creditor of provisional seizure during the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution was partially extinguished due to the cause such as repayment of claims by the creditor of provisional seizure during the lawsuit

[2] The case holding that in case where, in the auction procedure, the distribution schedule was prepared on the basis of the claim amount of provisional seizure by the creditor of provisional seizure, but thereafter, the creditor of provisional seizure received dividends from other real estate in the process of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution and the remaining claim amount falls short of the above claim amount of provisional seizure, the distribution schedule shall be corrected

[1] Article 151(3) of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 151(3) of the Civil Execution Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-ro, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation (Attorney Kim Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2006Na13283 Decided March 29, 2007

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that "the debtor of the loan of this case is not a non-party 1 but a non-party 2 corporation." In light of the facts admitted by the employment evidence, it is reasonable to see that the loan of this case was received by the non-party 1, not a non-party 2 corporation, and further rejected the plaintiff's assertion that "the defendant's demand for distribution by asserting that the debtor of the loan of this case is a non-party 1 goes against the terms and conditions of the good faith and the good faith," and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that "the defendant's demand for distribution by asserting that the debtor of the loan of this case is a non-party

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

가. 원심은, 그 채용 증거들을 종합하여, 대전제일신용협동조합(2003. 5. 14. 파산하였고, 현재 피고 예금보험공사가 그 파산관재인이다.)은 2001. 6. 11. 소외 1에게 5억 원을 상환기일 2004. 6. 11., 이율 연 11.5%, 연체이율 연 20%로 각 정하여 대출하고, 그 담보로 소외 2 주식회사로부터 그 소유 부동산에 관하여 채권최고액 7억 원의 근저당권을 설정받은 사실, 대전제일신용협동조합은 소외 1 소유의 대전 서구 월평동 302 황실타운 (동호수 생략)(이하 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라고 한다)에 관하여 이 사건 대출금 중 1억 원을 청구채권으로 가압류신청을 하여 2002. 10. 23. 대전지방법원 2002카단16412호로서 가압류결정 을 원인으로 청구금액 1억 원, 채권자 대전제일신용협동조합으로 된 가압류등기가 마쳐졌고, 원고도 이 사건 부동산에 가압류 신청을 하여 2003. 9. 18. 서울지방법원 2003카단188148호 가압류결정 을 원인으로 청구금액 3,000만 원, 채권자 원고로 된 가압류등기가 마쳐졌으며, 피고는 다시 이 사건 대출금 중 1억 원을 청구채권으로 하여 이 사건 부동산에 가압류 신청을 하여 2003. 10. 8. 대전지방법원 2003카단25850호 가압류결정 을 원인으로 청구금액 1억 원, 채권자 피고로 된 가압류등기가 마쳐진 사실, 대전지방법원은 2004. 7. 22. 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 근저당권자인 주식회사 국민은행의 신청에 의하여 2004타경27228호로 경매개시결정 을 하였고(이하 ‘이 사건 경매’라고 한다), 그 배당기일인 2005. 9. 8. 가압류채권자들로서 2순위인 원고에게 5,421,449원(배당비율 18.07%), 대전제일신용협동조합 및 그 파산관재인 피고 예금보험공사에게 36,142,994원(18,071,497원 + 18,071,497원, 배당비율 18.07%) 등을 배당하는 내용의 배당표를 작성한 사실, 원고는 위 배당기일에서 피고의 배당액 전부에 대하여 이의를 제기한 다음 이 사건 배당이의소송을 제기한 사실, 그 후 피고는 2006. 2. 7. 소외 2 주식회사 소유의 위 부동산에 설정한 근저당권을 실행하여 대전지방법원 2004타경37119호 부동산임의경매절차에서 681,407,752원을 배당받았고, 2006. 7. 13. 기준으로 이 사건 대출금 채권의 잔액이 57,511,403원인 사실 등을 인정한 다음, ‘피고가 이 사건 경매절차와 별도로 진행된 대전지방법원 2004타경37119 부동산임의경매사건의 배당절차에서 681,407,752원을 배당받아 이 사건 대출금 채권의 변제에 충당함으로써 이 사건 제1심 변론종결일 무렵인 2006. 7. 13. 기준으로 위 대출금 채권의 잔액은 57,511,403원에 불과하므로 피고에 대한 배당액은 36,142,994원{= (100,000,000원 + 100,000,000원) × 18.07%}이 아니라 10,392,310원(= 57,511,403원 × 18.07%)으로 되어야 하는데, 원고의 채권금액 중 배당 부족액은 19,714,199원이므로, 위 배당표 중 피고에 대한 배당액 36,142,994원은 16,428,795원으로, 원고에 대한 배당액 5,421,449원은 30,000,000원으로 경정되어야 한다.’는 원고의 주장을, 배당이의의 소의 원고는 배당기일 후에 발생한 취소, 해제, 상계, 변제 등의 사유를 공격방법으로 삼을 수 있으나, 그것은 어디까지나 피고의 채권이 소멸 또는 부존재하게 되어 원래의 배당표에 따라 배당을 실시할 경우 피고가 채권의 범위를 넘어 부당이득을 하게 되는 경우 등을 말하는바, 이 사건에서 원고의 배당이의로 말미암아 피고가 위 배당금을 수령하지 못한 상태에서 이 사건 배당이의 소송의 계속중에 다른 경매절차에서 681,407,752원을 배당받았으나, 이 사건 대출금에서 위 배당금을 공제하더라도 당시 57,511,403원의 대출금 채권이 남게 되어 이 사건에서의 피고 배당액 36,142,994원을 초과함이 명백하여 피고가 소외 1에 대한 대출원리금을 초과하여 배당받은 것은 아니므로, 이 사건 배당기일 이후에 피고가 이 사건 대출금을 전액 변제받았다거나 적어도 잔존 대출원리금이 피고의 배당액에 미치지 못하는 등의 특별한 사유가 없는 한 피고가 위와 같이 다른 배당절차에서 일부 변제받은 사유만으로 이 사건 경매절차의 배당기일에서 작성된 배당표 중 피고의 채권액을 금 2억 원이 아닌 위 잔존 채권액 57,511,403원을 기준으로 동순위 채권자들 사이에서 안분 배당하는 것으로 소급하여 배당표를 경정할 수는 없다는 이유로 배척하였다.

B. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to obtain in the following respect.

Article 151(3) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “A creditor who has appeared on the date may raise an objection against other creditors against his/her claims or the order of such claims within the scope related to his/her own interests.” Thus, even though the amount of claims received by each creditor in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is more than the amount of claims received by the defendant in the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the dispute exists over the amount of claims that constitute the basis of the distribution. If the amount of claims has decreased, if the amount of claims has been distributed in accordance with the legal principles on distribution under the Civil Execution Act, the amount of dividends would be reduced, and the plaintiff in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution may raise an objection against the distribution, on the other hand, as the grounds that have arisen from the date of distribution and the date of closing argument at the fact-finding court, the remaining amount of claims by the creditor having provisional seizure after the date of distribution become extinct due to some grounds, such as repayment, etc., which fall short of the amount of claims provisionally seized, such objection may be asserted as the grounds for objection.

In light of the above legal principles, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount divided in proportion to the amount of 200 million won, which is the claim amount of provisional seizure, to the defendant, who is the creditor of provisional seizure in the voluntary auction procedure of this case. However, inasmuch as the defendant received dividends in the auction procedure of other real estate in the course of the lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution of this case, and the remaining amount of claims is less than 200 million won, which is the claim amount of the provisional seizure, the plaintiff may assert it as a ground for objection, and the court as the

Nevertheless, the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s instant claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s assertion did not constitute grounds for revising the distribution schedule on the grounds that it did not constitute grounds for revising the distribution schedule. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the subject matter of objection or grounds for revising the distribution schedule, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)