1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion that "the defendant filed an action against the plaintiff for a share of expenses (this Court Decision 2012DaGa151957) and received a favorable judgment in the first instance court (hereinafter "the judgment of the first instance court related to "the case") based on this, he received 24,581,060 won in the dividend case of this court (hereinafter "the dividend of this case") from this court. However, the defendant's claim against the plaintiff recognized in the judgment of the first instance related to this case is not only substantial grounds, but also constitutes abuse of rights. The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the first instance related to this case, and raised an objection in the distribution procedure of this case, so the defendant's claim reported in the distribution procedure of this case by the defendant is an unregistered claim. Therefore, the dividend table of this case must be revised as stated in the purport of the claim."

2. Whether the instant lawsuit is lawful - In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, the purpose of which is to prevent other creditors from receiving dividends in accordance with the distribution schedule and to seek the confirmation of the amount of dividends as alleged by the Plaintiff, and thus, in a case where the distribution procedures have been completed and the distribution procedures have been completed, there is no benefit to file a lawsuit

As such, even if a creditor or debtor (i.e. a right holder of an asset subject to compulsory execution) who raised an objection under a distribution schedule receives relief by different procedures (e.g., filing a lawsuit for claiming the return of unjust enrichment against a creditor who received a dividend amount subject to objection), the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution itself is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.

(Supreme Court Decision 65Da647 delivered on May 31, 1965, etc.) Therefore, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the records as follows, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, and 2, the plaintiff raised an objection on the date of distribution of the instant case on the ground that the plaintiff filed an appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, and the court of distribution of the instant case rendered a judgment of the relevant first instance within one week to the plaintiff.