209Na2627 Demurrer against distribution

Dolsan limited liability company

Seoul Central District

representative director ○○

Barun Law Firm Non-agent

[Defendant-Appellee]

1. Korea Labor Welfare Corporation (A);

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul

Representative President Kim○-○

[Defendant-Appellant] Gyeong-gu et al.

[Defendant-Appellee]

2. High ○○ (B, 72 years old, female)

Mabiode Mag-si

3. Road ○○ (C, 77 years old, male)

Mabiode Mag-si

4. Kim○-○ (D, 73 years old, female)

Last Address, Manan-gu

5. Kim○-○ (E, 84 years old, female)

Ansan-gu

6. Kim○-○ (F, 79 years old, male)

Guang-si

7. Self-governing ○○ (G, 76 years old, female)

Mayang-si Mayang-gu

8. Maximum○ (H, 79 years old, female)

Geumcheon-gu Seoul

9. Yellow ○○ (I, 81 years old, male);

Seoul Gwangjin-gu

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Da74037 Decided December 17, 2008

June 24, 2009

July 15, 2009

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. Of the dividend table prepared on July 16, 2008, concerning Suwon District Court Decision 2007 000, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as "the auction case of the above real estate"), the dividend amount of KRW 46,948, 910 against Defendant A shall be KRW 6,748, 809, KRW 4, 474, 240, KRW 16, 260, KRW 337, KRW 10, KRW 845, KRW 166, KRW 474, KRW 475, KRW 97, KRW 165, KRW 47, KRW 470 on the dividend amount of the above real estate; KRW 1,104, KRW 85, KRW 145, KRW 81, KRW 470 on the defendant, KRW 165, KRW 475, KRW 470 on the appointed party.

The plaintiff is the cause of the claim of this case. The court of execution, which is the right to collateral security (the plaintiff is the transferee of the above right to collateral security), established on February 18, 2008 upon the commencement of a request for auction of the above real estate auction case. On March 28, 2008, the court accepted an application for postponement of J, which is a full-time employee of the debtor L Co., Ltd., and extended the completion date of demand for distribution on March 5, 2008 (hereafter referred to as "the postponement decision of this case" in this subparagraph). After that, on March 3, 2008, the court of execution did not allow the defendants to extend the period of the above request for distribution under Article 7 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, on the grounds that the remaining defendants' request for distribution was made within the scope of 51,000 won, or within the scope of 501,000 won, the remaining defendants' request for distribution should not be made within the scope of 60,000 won.

However, in the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution filed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff's demand for distribution shall be recognized as the grounds that the defendants' demand for distribution is invalid as a source or that the defendants' claim does not exist in itself. Thus, as long as the decision of postponement of the distribution of this case was finalized without dispute through the execution procedure within the execution procedure, such as an objection to execution of the decision of postponement of this case and a special appeal, the plaintiff's demand for distribution, which was made within the specific period for the demand for distribution extended by the validity, cannot be deemed null and void, even if the plaintiff alleged in the decision of postponement of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot immediately seek the exclusion of the defendants' demand for distribution through the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution without going through the above procedure. Therefore, the plaintiff's remaining grounds for appeal shall not be further examined.

Furthermore, examining the illegality of the plaintiff's decision of postponement of the above 2nd execution court's order, Gap's 4, 8, and 9 were difficult to accept the above 2nd execution court's decision of postponement of the above 8th execution court's order, and the above 2nd month was set on February 18, 208 as the closing date for demand of distribution, and the J, a creditor of wage and retirement pay, was in arrears with 4, 627th, and 860 won for the above 4th time period for demand of distribution, and the above 4th time period for demand of distribution was delayed due to the lack of sufficient knowledge of the above 6th time period for demand of distribution, and the above 8th time period for demand of distribution cannot be accepted for the above 6th time period for demand of distribution, and the above 8th time period for demand of distribution cannot be accepted for the above 4th time period for demand of distribution by the defendant to the above 36th day of March 3, 2008.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge last sentence of the presiding judge -

Judges Lee Dong-hee

Judges Cho Young-young