1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The judgment of the plaintiff is based on the decision of the Ulsan District Court 201Gahap4236 which the defendant is the executive title, and the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is not entitled to receive dividends in the distribution procedure of this case since the plaintiff is against the validity of the claim seizure and collection order of the Ulsan District Court 2013TTTTT7134, which was received by the plaintiff as the debtor and the 3rd obligor of the Busan District Court 201Gahap4236 (hereinafter referred to as the "TTT"), and therefore, it is against the validity of the claim seizure and collection order of the Ulsan District Court 201TTT7134 (hereinafter referred to as the "the combination of this case").

Before determining the Plaintiff’s assertion, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A person who has standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be present on the date of distribution and raise an objection on the substantive basis of the distribution schedule, and in order for a creditor to appear on the date of distribution as a creditor and raise an objection on the substantive basis of the distribution schedule, the creditor who is the executory debtor under the substantive law is insufficient to have made a lawful demand for distribution by the deadline for requesting distribution. The creditor who was not lawfully required to make a demand for distribution does not have the right to attend on the date of distribution and make an objection on the date of distribution, and even if such person was present on the date of distribution and raised an objection on the date of distribution, it is unlawful objection and there is no standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da27696 Decided August 22, 2003; 2001Da63155 Decided September 4, 2002, etc.). In addition, the scope of creditors entitled to demand a distribution in the compulsory execution against a monetary claim pursuant to the Civil Act, the Commercial Act, and other Acts.