The plaintiff filed an objection to the distribution as the owner's status against the other company of this case, but it is illegal as it was filed by a person who has no standing to sue.

The plaintiff may know the fact that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution on the grounds of the substantive nature that the plaintiff should receive the proceeds of the successful bid as the plaintiff owned by the plaintiff. However, such substantive reason is not related to the status of the mortgagee as to the other company of this case, and it is inappropriate to file a lawsuit of demurrer against the plaintiff, since it is not related to the status of

2013 Gohap 4189 Demurrer against distribution

AAA Capital, Inc.

Korea

April 10, 2014

May 1, 2014

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

With respect to the case of voluntary auction of construction machinery at Seosan District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, 2013 Maz. 1384, the amount of dividend payments against the defendant among the dividend table prepared by the same court on September 25, 2013 shall be deleted, and the amount of dividend payments against the plaintiff shall be corrected to the amount of dividend payments as the amount of OOOOO.

1. Basic facts

A. Conclusion of a lease agreement

"1) On Aug. 29, 2008, the Plaintiff, a facility leasing company, entered into a lease agreement with the head of the registry of the construction machinery on Aug. 29, 2008, setting the deposit amount as OO, 36 months from Aug. 29, 2008, OOO of the rent, and 6.2% per annum of the lease interest rate. The Plaintiff, a facility leasing company, transferred the instant respondent to BB BB S, and 2) BB S S Ss on December 27, 2009.

"3) On March 30, 2010, ChoCC, etc., a director of BB BB S, established BB BB (hereinafter “B”). On May 20, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessee of the lease contract described in BB BB and the above 1) with the BB BB from May 20, 2010, the lease period from May 20, 2010 to June 20, 2012, and the lease period from May 20 to June 20, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

B. Termination of the instant lease agreement

On March 3, 2011, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement on the ground that BB was unpaid rent.

(c) Conduct of voluntary auction procedures and preparation of a distribution schedule;

1) In the case of voluntary auction of construction machinery at Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, 2013 Dota, 1384, as to the athletes of the instant case, the said court, on September 25, 2013, prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the Plaintiff, the applicant creditor, and the mortgagee, distribute the OOO won among the total amount of claims, in the order of priority, to the Defendant, who requested delivery as a national tax creditor against BB employees of the Company BB, as a national tax creditor against the Company BB employees.

2) On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff made a statement of objection to the distribution against the Defendant on the ground that the ownership of the other company of this case was reserved to the Plaintiff.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including natural disasters), Eul evidence 1, the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the lawfulness of the lawsuit

A person who has standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be limited to a creditor or debtor who has appeared on the date of distribution on the date of distribution and has raised an objection under the substantive law as to the distribution schedule, and even in cases where the goods owned by a third party are mistaken as owned by the debtor as the subject matter of compulsory execution, the third party does not have the right to attend the date of distribution and raise an objection under the substantive law as to the distribution schedule. Therefore, even if the third party appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the distribution schedule, such objection is unreasonable, and there is no standing to sue in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against the third party (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da63155, Sept. 4, 2002).

According to the above evidence, the plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution as a mortgagee of the other company of this case, and raised an objection against the distribution schedule and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case on the substantive grounds that the plaintiff should receive dividends since the above other company was owned by the plaintiff, not BB S, the plaintiff was present on the date of distribution. However, these substantive grounds are not related to the status of the mortgagee as to the other company of this case, and they appear in the owner's position. Thus, the plaintiff's objection is legitimate as it was filed only by a person who is not an interested party in the auction procedure, and the lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case was filed by the non-party

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.