Whether the completion date for demand for distribution of this case has submitted to a court the proceeds of sale or the money received by the execution officer.

The fixed date for demand for distribution corresponding to shares is "when the execution officer has submitted the cash cash cashed to a court" under Article 247 (1) 3 of the Civil Execution Act, so the request for delivery of this case shall be made within the fixed date.

Article 189(2)3 of the Civil Execution Act

2014 Gohap 500291 Demurrer against distribution

AAA Corporation

Korea

April 17, 2014

May 8, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Seoul Central District Court on December 27, 2013 with respect to the dividend procedure case 000 taly000

Of the distribution schedule prepared, the amount of KRW 000,000,000 against the defendant shall be deleted, and against the plaintiff

The amount of dividends shall be corrected to KRW 000,000,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 21, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) rendered a provisional attachment order (Seoul District Court 000Kadan0000) on shares of 000 stock companies owned by NAB (hereinafter “instant shares”); (b) on September 7, 201, the decision of the seizure of shares (the same court 000 Kadan0000) to transfer the said provisional attachment to the original attachment; (c) on July 27, 201, the decision of correction of the above decision of seizure of shares (the same court 00 KaBa0000) (the above court 00 6.7 billion won) on July 1, 2013, the Plaintiff received 600 GaB from the Seoul Central Execution Court 2005 Ga25000,000,0000,000 won (the above court 0.3 billion won) on which the sale price of the shares was 5 billion won or less; and (b) on August 268, 20196000.5.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that the demand for distribution in the execution of corporeal movables should be made by the execution officer until the proceeds have been received, so it is unlawful that the Defendant’s request for delivery, which was made on September 2, 2013, was passed on August 29, 2013, which is the completion period for the demand for distribution, and that even if the completion period for the demand for distribution was not exceeded, the Defendant’s request for delivery was submitted to an execution officer who is not the execution court, and its validity shall not be recognized.

B. Determination

Considering corporeal movables as prescribed by Article 189(2)3 of the Civil Execution Act in accordance with Article 189(2)3 of the Civil Execution Act is a valuable instrument and there is room for share certificates to be subject to prohibition of endorsement, but shares do not correspond thereto. In this case, the completion period of demand for distribution is the date of September 3, 2013, which is "when the execution officer has received the proceeds of sale" under the latter part of Article 22(1)1 of the Civil Execution Act, rather than "when the execution officer has received the proceeds of sale" under Article 247(1)3 of the Civil Execution Act, which is "when the execution officer has submitted the proceeds of sale to a court" under Article 247(1)3 of the Civil Execution Act. In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 4 of Article 189(2) of the Civil Execution Act

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.