The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. An objection against a distribution schedule must be raised against creditors stating that the said distribution schedule was received as dividends. If the selected parties are selected in the distribution procedure, only the designated parties who are not the designated parties are the parties to the distribution schedule. Thus, only the designated parties are the parties to the objection against the distribution schedule.

In addition, in a case where a debtor or other creditor raises an objection against the designated party against the total amount that the debtor or other creditor has received as a dividend, the joint interest between the designated party and the designated party is not extinguished. Thus, the designated party revoked the selection of the court of execution.

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as the death of the appointed party or the appointed party, a creditor who is not the appointed party and is the other party to the distribution schedule and has the standing to file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

Therefore, barring such special circumstances as above, a debtor or other creditor who has raised an objection against the designated party against the total amount stated as being distributed to him/her may file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the designated party as the defendant and seek correction of the total amount stated as being distributed to the designated party, including the portion to be reverted to the designated party.

2. After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff, who raised an objection against the Defendant solely against the Defendant, against the Defendant, who is in the position of creditor of the distribution procedure of the instant case, on the entire amount stated in the distribution schedule, could seek correction of the entire amount.

Such determination by the lower court is justifiable in that it is based on the legal doctrine as seen earlier, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of claims.