1. The part of the claim extended in the trial of the case shall be dismissed.

2. All appeals filed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in this case is as follows. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in this case is as follows: (a) the respective corresponding parts of the judgment of the court of first instance are used as "the part used by the court of first instance"; and (b) the judgment on the claims and additional arguments expanded by the plaintiff in the trial are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition "3. Additional Judgment" as stated below

2. From the second bottom of the part 2nd to the 6th part, the Defendant “the Defendant” shall be the Defendant “the Plaintiff shall be the Defendant.”

Part 5 attached Table 7 "135,310,369 won" shall be added to "135,301,369 won".

In Part 7, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone shall be written in the front of "A, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, including the statement 10-1 and 2 of the evidence submitted by the plaintiff".

On the 8th page, “A” was made by the Defendant “A,” and “B,” the date of distribution “B,” which is the date of distribution “B,” and “B,” under the 8th Schedule, by the Defendant “B,” respectively.

3. Additional determination

A. Only creditors or debtors who have raised an objection as to the distribution schedule on the date of distribution on the date of distribution determination as to the claims extended in the trial at the trial, have the standing to be a plaintiff in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution (see, e.g., Article 154(1) of the Civil Execution Act), and seeking alteration of the distribution schedule on the date of distribution with respect to the portion not raised an objection as to the portion on the date of distribution is an objection against the part on which the distribution was already completed.

(See Article 152(3) of the Civil Execution Act. Therefore, the scope of seeking the correction of a distribution schedule in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution ought to be limited to the extent to which an objection against the distribution schedule was raised on the date of distribution.

The fact that the plaintiff raised an objection only against KRW 341,805,539 out of the defendant's dividend amount on the date of distribution is as seen earlier, and the plaintiff made a distribution schedule against the above amount.