1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The distribution procedure PP case for the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts in the judgment of the first instance is as stated in paragraph (1) of the first instance judgment, except for the following: “Defendants” in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance as “Defendants and co-defendants of the first instance court”; “The five pages 15 and 19 are deleted; and “The facts having no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 5; Gap’s evidence 8-3; Gap’s evidence 10, 11, 13, and 14; and the purport of the whole pleadings” are as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the wage claim under the instant payment order had already been fully paid and terminated, the instant payment order was prepared based on the claim statement unrelated to the instant payment order, and thus, the Defendants’ dividends were unlawful.

B. The Defendants filed an application for the instant payment order with false conspiracy with the instant company to evade compulsory execution by creditors, including the Plaintiff, even though they are not the employees of the instant company. Since the said payment order is null and void, it is unlawful to distribute the said order to the Defendants on the basis thereof.

3. According to the facts found in the above determination, the distribution procedure of this case is conducted by the Plaintiff’s seizure based on the final judgment of this case and the seizure based on the payment order of this case among the Defendants and co-defendants of the first instance court, and the agreement on distribution was not reached. Thus, the amount of credit in the distribution procedure is the amount of credit under the final judgment of this case and the payment order of this case. In the case of the Defendants, not the amount of credit under the payment order of this case as of February 31, 2012, which is the amount of credit under the payment order of this case, but the amount of unpaid wages and three-year retirement allowances as of July 31, 2

As seen earlier in the instant distribution procedure, the instant company and the co-defendants of the first instance court each of the Defendants and the co-defendants of the first instance court (the amount of credit on the instant payment order) as of February 2, 2012, and ② July 2, 2013.