1. The plaintiff (the appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (the appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, etc. demanded the distribution of the above wage claim prior to October 1, 2018, which was the date of the completion period to demand the distribution of the auction case concerning the real estate owned by the non-party company, on the ground that there exists the re-paid wage claim (see the evidence No. 5-5) in attached Form 2 in attached Table 2 against the non-party company C (hereinafter “non-party company”).

B. On June 5, 2019, the executing court of the auction case: (a) preferentially distributes dividends of KRW 2,440,413,567, June 5, 2019, to the substitute payment with the highest priority repayment right; (b) prepares a distribution list of dividends to the Defendant, who is the first priority mortgagee, who has agreed to the above limited company and dividends of KRW 2,113,829,160, KRW 90,512,589, and KRW 195,323,338, to the Defendant, who is the second priority mortgagee.

(c)

Plaintiff

When excluded from dividends as above, the Defendant raised an objection against the Defendant’s dividends of KRW 90,512,589 of the dividend amount, and filed the instant lawsuit on June 12, 2019, to the effect that there was a claim for wages which had been paid and paid for three months prior to his/her retirement, such as the period in which “amount of dividend” in the attached Table 2 was “amount of dividends.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 through 6 (which include various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, the Plaintiff, etc., while serving in the non-party company and retired from office in the around July of the same year from April 2018, and asserts that the Defendant should correct the distribution schedule received prior to priority over the Plaintiff, etc. as stated in the purport of the claim.

As to this, the defendant cannot be seen as an employee of the non-party company, and even if otherwise, the plaintiff et al. raised an objection to wages is merely the most difficult wage claim in collusion with the non-party company without actually providing labor.