1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs (appointed parties) and the designated parties are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is that of the first instance judgment, except where the second last action “a decision” is deemed to be “decision of correction,” and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment.

[Article 247(1)1 of the Civil Execution Act permits a creditor, other than an execution creditor, to participate in the compulsory execution procedure for a claim by the method of demand for distribution and obtain satisfaction of his/her claim equally with the execution creditor, on the other hand, while limiting the completion period for demand for distribution to the time until the report on the grounds for deposit by a third-party debtor is filed, on the other hand, because the third-party debtor may prevent confusion and delay in the distribution procedure until the time when the third-party debtor deposits his/her debt amount and completes the report on the grounds therefor, and the distribution procedure can be commenced. The establishment of the time limit for demand for distribution is reasonable measures to prevent confusion and delay in the distribution procedure to be caused in the event that permission is allowed without restriction on demand for distribution. Accordingly, even if the creditor, which failed to demand a distribution until that time is excluded from the distribution and becomes discriminated against the other creditors, such discrimination shall not be treated differently because it is called the case of a person who has the right for preferential reimbursement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da6868, May 14, 19999).