1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of this court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial dismissal or addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 1067" in the second part of the judgment of the court of second instance, shall be "No. 107".

The distribution schedule under the 6th sentence of the judgment of the first instance court is the "distribution schedule (hereinafter "the distribution schedule of this case")".

The fifth week of the judgment of the court of first instance is "2015 Taz. 161543" in the fourth week of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The 7th written judgment of the first instance court is " November 13, 2016" in the 20th written judgment of the second instance as " November 23, 2016."

The following shall be added between conduct 13 and 14 of the decision of the first instance.

[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 him/her. Thus, in order for the Plaintiff to win a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the Plaintiff’s assertion and certification is not sufficient to assert and prove that there is no claim of the Defendant and that he/she has the right to receive dividends in the amount distributed to him/her to the Defendant. Even if the Plaintiff did not raise an objection against the Plaintiff on the date of distribution, the Defendant may deny the existence of the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s claim may be rejected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da4259, Jul. 12, 2012). In this case, the Defendants asserted the existence of the Plaintiff’

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 8 and 9, the part of the instant dividend table, which the Plaintiff received as the holder of the right to collect claims and collection orders No. 2005 Other Bonds No. 10011 of the Incheon District Court, and the part which the Plaintiff received as the holder of the right to collect claims and collection orders No. 2006 Other Bonds No. 2343 of the same court, is submitted as evidence,