If a distribution schedule is prepared by omitting a written application for issuance, whether the written application for issuance has arrived.

As long as the written request for delivery is sent within the period of demand for distribution by registered mail and has reached the auction court, the legitimate request for delivery has been made.

2014 Mada40595 Demurrer

Korea

Z Kim

January 16, 2015

January 30, 2015

1. From among the distribution schedule prepared on February 7, 2014, AAA District Court 201X24 XX, 201X57, the amount of dividends against the defendant shall be reduced to 35,516,847 won, and the amount of dividends shall be corrected to be distributed to the plaintiff 6,414,878 won.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to real estate, such as real estate and machinery, equipment, etc., such as EE-EF Ri 584 land owned by AA Environment (hereinafter “AA Environment”), PapB filed an application for compulsory auction under Article 201XT24 XX with respect to the real estate and machinery, equipment, etc., the decision to commence the auction was made, and the auction was conducted under 201XT57 XX.

B. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff prepared a written claim for the delivery of value-added tax of KRW 19,422,850 in arrears for the AA environment as of March 2013, and sent it by registered mail to the above auction court on March 25, 2013. The said written claim for delivery reached the above auction court on March 2013, 2013, which is prior to the date of demand for distribution (referred to as May 2013).

C. However, the above auction court omitted the above request for delivery and excluded the Plaintiff from the distribution obligee, and accordingly, prepared a distribution schedule stating that the amount to be actually distributed on the date of open distribution on X. 2014, and the remaining amount after distributing the wage creditors, collateral security holders, etc. who are priority creditors, and the Defendant, etc. who is a general creditor, was an objection to the said distribution date. The Plaintiff’s representative ParkCC appeared on the above distribution date and raised an objection against the Defendant’s 6,414 out of the dividend amount, and the commercialization cost.

Facts that the defendant does not clearly dispute the defendant (Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act) or evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-1, 2, 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

As long as the Plaintiff sent a written request for delivery within the final date for demand for distribution and made it reached the auction court, the Plaintiff is deemed to have made a lawful request for delivery, and since it is apparent that the Plaintiff has the right to receive dividends in preference to the Defendant, who is a general creditor, as a tax payer, the said distribution schedule made without excluding the Plaintiff, shall be corrected in an unlawful manner. Therefore, among the Defendant’s dividends, KRW 6,414,878, which the Plaintiff sought from the Plaintiff,

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.