1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

(a) A person who has standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be limited to the creditor or debtor who has appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection under substantive nature as to the distribution schedule;

In order for a creditor to be present on the date of distribution and raise an objection against the substantive nature of the distribution schedule, the said creditor is insufficient solely by the fact that he is the creditor against the executory debtor under substantive law, and has lawfully made a demand for distribution by the deadline for completion of demand for distribution. The creditor who has not lawfully made a demand for distribution does not have the right to attend on the date of distribution and make an objection against the distribution schedule, and even if such person appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the distribution schedule, even if he did not have the right to raise an objection against the distribution schedule, he

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Da258289, Jun. 13, 2019). (B)

We examine the plaintiff's primary claim.

Article 88(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that "a creditor who has an executory exemplification, a creditor who has effected a provisional seizure subsequent to the registration of a decision to commence the auction, a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the Civil Act, the Commercial Act and other Acts may demand a distribution." "a person who has the executory exemplification" refers to a person who has the obligation attached to the execution clause in the name of the debtor for whom the execution clause is required, such as a judgment or a notarial deed, in the name of the debt for which the execution clause is attached. Therefore, a creditor who has requested a distribution, accompanied by an execution clause, cannot be deemed as a lawful person entitled to demand a distribution.

In addition, on April 12, 2018, prior to the completion date of demand for distribution in the procedure for compulsory auction A by the Daegu District Court Branch A, Daegu District Court 2007Kadan125809, where the execution clause was not granted, the plaintiff submitted an application for a report on rights and a demand for distribution on April 12, 2018.