The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. When seizure competes, each seizure becomes effective on all the claims subject to seizure (Article 235 of the Civil Execution Act). If a garnishee terminates the claims subject to seizure by making an execution deposit under Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act with the concurrent status of seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10748, May 30, 2003). In this case, the seizure order of all the creditors related to the concurrent seizure loses its effect by accomplishing its purpose, and the status of the execution creditor is converted into the status of the creditor entitled to receive dividends against the execution deposit, and the execution creditor may participate in the distribution procedure even if the third debtor fails to demand a distribution under Article 247 of the Civil Execution Act by the time when the reason for the deposit of the garnishee is reported.

Therefore, when the third debtor made a deposit for execution while the seizure is concurrent, the third debtor failed to enter some of the concurrent seizure while reporting the reason.

Even if there is no different view, and in the event that the execution claim of seizure omitted in the distribution procedure for the deposit made thereafter is excluded from the distribution of dividends, the execution creditor may file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution against the other execution creditors, etc. who received excessive dividends, and seek the correction of the distribution schedule.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da58959 delivered on November 26, 2004). 2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the following facts can be revealed.

Workers, including the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) shall be entitled to the instant claim against the superior construction company in the Postal Construction Industry (hereinafter “Seman Construction”) by providing the wage and retirement allowance claim against the Suwon District Court, 2009Kadan10077 on March 25, 2009 (hereinafter “Semant Construction”) as the preserved right.