1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

In fact, the quasi-medical foundation operated the Choyang-si Hospital in Yangsan-si, and 233 workers C et al. were requested to substitute payment for unpaid wages and retirement allowances to the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office, as business activities were suspended due to bad management difficulties due to the suspension of hospital's business. The defendant paid the above workers KRW 1,950,570,250.

On January 10, 2014, with respect to real estate owned by the above quasi-medical foundation, the auction procedure of real estate deposit (which overlaps with the auction procedure of real estate E; hereinafter referred to as "instant auction procedure") was commenced by Ulsan District Court D on January 10, 2014, and the completion period of demand for distribution was April 7, 2014 in the above auction procedure.

The Plaintiffs retired from office on or around February 3, 2014 as workers of the above hospital, and Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B filed an application for distribution with each of the instant auction procedures on October 23, 2014.

On February 4, 2015, the date of distribution of the instant auction procedure, the Plaintiffs were excluded, and the distribution procedure was completed by the Defendant on the grounds that the Defendant received dividends of KRW 1,799,715,600.

【In the absence of any dispute, there is no ground for recognition, and Article 84(6) of the Civil Execution Act provides that the plaintiffs’ claim for judgment as to the grounds for a claim as to the respective entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings may be postponed. Accordingly, complying with the completion period for demand for distribution under the Civil Execution Act cannot be deemed an absolute requirement in the distribution under the Civil Execution Act, and the plaintiffs’ unpaid wages, retirement allowances and claims hold the top priority under the substantive law in the distribution procedure. However, just because the plaintiffs completed the completion period for demand for distribution of the auction procedure of this case, it constitutes unjust enrichment and thus,

Provided, That the creditor demanding a distribution under the provisions of Article 88 (1) of the Civil Execution Act shall be the demand for distribution.