Whether the preferential creditor who did not receive the distribution has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment in case where the distribution was made in accordance with the finalized distribution schedule (affirmative)

Since the execution of distribution according to the finalized distribution schedule does not confirm the rights under substantive law, in case where a person who is liable to receive the distribution receives the distribution without receiving the distribution, the preferential creditor who did not receive the distribution has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment, regardless of whether the objection has been raised to the distribution or whether the procedure of the distribution becomes final

Article 741 of the Civil Act, Article 589 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da839 delivered on July 14, 1964, 76Da2894 delivered on February 22, 197, and 75Da1114 delivered on May 24, 197

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Appointed Party) attorneys Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Korea

Daegu High Court Decision 86Na828 delivered on November 19, 1986

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

Even if the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 6 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were assigned.

However, since the payment of dividends pursuant to the confirmed distribution schedule does not confirm the substantive right, in case where a person who is liable to receive dividends has received dividends without receiving dividends, the preferential creditor who did not receive dividends has the right to claim the return of unjust enrichment regardless of whether the objection was raised to the dividends or whether the distribution procedure in form became final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 63Da839, Jul. 14, 1964). According to the records, each of the above claims against the non-party against the non-party is wages and retirement allowance claims under Article 30-2 of the Labor Standards Act, which are prior to the defendant's above value-added tax, so the defendant is obligated to return the unjust enrichment to the plaintiffs

Unlike the opinion of the court below, the court below confirmed the distribution schedule as it is by stating that there is no objection to the implementation of the distribution schedule by the plaintiffs' agent present on the date of distribution, and therefore, the plaintiffs committed an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the distribution schedule and unjust enrichment which became final and conclusive that there was no right to claim for return

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)