The plaintiff did not demand a distribution until the completion period for the demand for distribution, and there is no right to receive a distribution as a whole in the distribution procedure in this case.

The plaintiff did not demand a distribution until the completion period for the demand for distribution, and there was no right to receive a distribution as a full-holder in the distribution procedure in this case, and the subcontractor who entered into the subcontract of this case and is only a general creditor.

Civil Act

2015 Gohap2502 Demurrer against distribution

○ ○

Korea

May 25, 2016

July 20, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

Of the dividend schedule prepared by the same court on July 28, 2015 with respect to the dividend procedure case of the district court 2014 another ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

1. Basic facts

A. Contracts, etc. between Dada and Non-Party Construction

1) On December 21, 2012, the Non-Party Corporation contracted the 2BL landscaping project implemented by the Non-Party Corporation (hereinafter “the instant contract”). The price was changed to ○○○○○.

2) On July 15, 2013, part of the above construction works, which was awarded a subcontract to the Plaintiff at the cost of ○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant subcontract”).

(b) Claim attachment and assignment order of Defendant A (Assignment Order No. 1) by Defendant A;

1) Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant A”) filed an application for a payment order against Dada with the district court 2012 next Ga○○○○○○○○○○ on September 26, 2012 against Dada. The said court issued a payment order ordering ○○○○ and its delay damages to Defendant A.

2) On December 17, 2012, Defendant A filed an order of seizure and assignment with the district court 2012 other ○○○○○○○○○, among the claim for construction price based on the instant contract that Nonparty A had against Nonparty A, with the original copy of the above order of payment as an executive title, and received a decision of seizure and assignment order (hereinafter referred to as “order of assignment order”) with the district court 2012 other ○○○○○○○○○, which was issued on December 17, 2012. This was served on Nonparty A, the garnishee, on December 17, 2012.

C. Seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea shall enter in Schedule 1, on the basis of national tax claims in relation to Cda; and

D. In addition, the claim for the construction cost against the non-party corporation was seized.

[Attachment 1: Details of Korean Attachment]

(d) Acceptance of D'ra's claim attachment and assignment order (the assignment order No. 2) and plaintiff's claim for full amount;

1) On February 14, 2013, Lone Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Lone Co., Ltd.”) prepared a notary public’s No. 2013 No. 2013, a notary public’s No. 2013, a title of execution, and filed an order of seizure and assignment with respect to ○○○○○, among the construction price claims based on the instant contract that Nonparty Co., Ltd. owns with respect to Nonparty Co., Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as “instant assignment order”). On February 14, 2013, the said court issued a ruling of seizure and assignment order of claims (hereinafter referred to as “instant assignment order”). On February 19, 2013, the second assignment order was served on Nonparty Co., Ltd., a debtor, a third obligor.

2) On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the assignment of claims between Dra and Dra with the purport that the Plaintiff acquires the claim of KRW 00 based on the assignment order of KRW 2 from Dra. Nonparty Corporation received notification of the said assignment of claims from Dra on July 29, 2013.

E. Taking over full deposits from Defendant Republic of Korea

On February 27, 2014, Defendant Republic of Korea seized KRW 00,00,00, out of the total amount of value-added tax owned by Defendant A with respect to Defendant A, based on KRW 00,00,00 based on the first assignment order that Defendant A owns against Nonparty A, Defendant A attached to Nonparty A’s corporation. The above notification of attachment was served on Nonparty A, a garnishee, on March 3, 2014.

F. Deposit for the execution of the Nonparty Corporation

1) From April 28, 2014 to April 29, 2014, Nonparty Corporation performed a claim and debt confirmation inspection on the 2BL landscaping construction, and settled multi-facery work cost as ○○○○.

2) On June 20, 2014, the Non-Party Corporation deposited the remaining ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in 2014 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

3) On June 20, 2014, the deposit date of the instant case, the Nonparty Corporation reported the grounds for deposit under Article 248(4) of the Civil Execution Act to the district court. Accordingly, the procedure for distributing dividends was initiated by the district court 2014 another Ba○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant dividend procedure”).

G. Order of seizure and collection against the claim for payment of the deposit money of Defendant BB

1) Defendant BB filed a lawsuit against Defendant A for the claim for the amount of transfer money with the district court 2013 Single ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on November 8, 2013. On November 8, 2013, the said court rendered a judgment ordering Defendant BA to pay ○○○○ and its delay damages to Defendant B, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

2) Defendant B, with the authentic copy of the judgment above, filed an application for a seizure and collection order with respect to ○○○○, among the instant dividend claims that Defendant A had against the Republic of Korea, with the competent district court 2015 another bond ○○○○○, with the executory title, regarding the original copy of the judgment above, on March 25, 2015.

(h) Preparation of a distribution schedule and the plaintiff's objection to distribution;

1) On July 28, 2015, the district court prepared a distribution schedule with the content that the amount ○○○○○○, which is to be actually distributed, distributed as follows (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) in the instant distribution procedure.

【instant distribution schedule】

2) The Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection to the entire amount of distribution to the Defendants among the instant distribution schedule, and filed the instant lawsuit on August 4, 2015.

I. Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of subcontract price against Down

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D Dada seeking payment of ○○○○ and damages for delay on the aggregate of the construction cost of the instant subcontract, etc. under the district court 2015 Mada○○○○○○○○○, etc., and the said court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff that “○○○ and the damages for delay thereof are paid on May 18, 2016.” The said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground for recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 5, and 6-5 through 8, Gap evidence 8-2, Gap evidence 10-2, Gap evidence 10-3, 4, Gap evidence 15-4, Eul evidence 16, Eul evidence 1, 5 Eul evidence, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1 through 3, the whole purport of the pleadings, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

For the following reasons, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount distributed to the Defendants among the instant distribution schedule should be deleted, and that the deleted amount should be distributed to the Plaintiff.

(a) Defendant A, Defendant A, Defendant Republic of Korea, Defendant B, or 1;

1) Defendant A received the first assignment order on the basis of the authentic copy of the payment order for the construction cost case No. 2012 ○○○○○○○○○ in the district court. However, since Defendant A’s claim for the construction cost against Defendant A D D is false, the first assignment order based thereon is invalid.

2) Meanwhile, under the premise that the assignment order No. 1 is effective, Defendant A’s Republic of Korea and Defendant BB issued a collection order as to the claim against Nonparty A’s non-party corporation’s non-party corporation’s dividends claim, or as to the claim against Defendant A’s dividends claim. As long as the assignment order has no validity, Defendant A’s Republic of Korea, BB did not have the right to receive dividends in the instant

(b) The defendant with the second priority distribution right;

Defendant Republic of Korea seized the claim for the payment of the construction price against Nonparty D, which is based on the national tax claim against Dda, but Defendant Republic of Korea repaid the national tax claim against Daehan prior to the date of distribution of the instant case. Defendant Republic of Korea has no right to receive dividends in the instant distribution procedure.

C. The Plaintiff’s labor cost portion

1) Meanwhile, according to Article 88(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, an amount equivalent to wages that a constructor shall pay to workers of the construction work (including subcontracted work) out of the contract amount of the construction work he/she has contracted cannot be seized.

2) The Plaintiff completed part of the 2BL landscaping project based on the instant subcontract. Around April 2014, Nonparty Corporation recognized ○○○○○○○○○ Won’s work cost settlement of the construction cost, but only paid ○○○○○ Won directly to employees, and deposited the instant case including ○○○○○ Won, which is the remainder equivalent to the wage prohibited from seizure.

3) Of the instant deposited money deposited by the Nonparty Corporation, the said ○○○○○○○○○○○ is a part that is unable to be seized by multiple obligees. As such, this part cannot be a dividend foundation, and should be distributed to the Plaintiff in preference to other executory creditors’ claims, including the Defendants.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

1) A lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is filed with respect to himself by reducing the dividend amount of a person entered in the distribution schedule.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff seeks modification of the distribution schedule or the preparation of a new distribution schedule in order to make the distribution distributed, it should be asserted and proved that the Plaintiff is not sufficient to assert and prove that there is no claim of the Defendant in order to win a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and that he/she has the right to receive dividends from the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da42259, Jul. 12, 2012).

2) Meanwhile, where a legitimate demand for distribution has not been made in the distribution procedure, a creditor who has the right to demand a preferential reimbursement under the substantive law shall not be entitled to a distribution, even if he/she is the creditor who has the right to demand a distribution, and even though he/she has demand a distribution by the completion period for the demand for a distribution, where only a part of the claim is the creditor who has demand a distribution, the claim that has not been demand a distribution shall not be added or expanded after the completion period for the demand for a distribution has been completed (see

B. The Plaintiff received dividends from the distribution procedure of this case with claims, such as the subcontract price of this case

With respect to the existence of rights

1) On May 18, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Daehan seeking payment of the subcontract price, etc. of this case with the district court 2015 Mada○○○○○○○○, and received a partial winning judgment. The fact that the judgment became final and conclusive around that time is as seen earlier.

2) However, according to the foregoing, the Plaintiff appears to have become a party to the instant distribution procedure in the position of acquiring the claim for the entire amount based on the assignment order of No. 2 from Dra with the status of acquiring the claim for the payment claim based on the assignment order of D. The fact that the Nonparty Corporation deposited the instant deposit on June 20, 2014 and reported the reason for deposit pursuant to Article 248(4) of the Civil Execution Act is as seen earlier, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff made a demand for distribution based on the construction cost, etc. of the instant subcontract against D, a demand for distribution period, by the

3) As long as the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have demanded a distribution based on the claims, such as the subcontract price, etc., until the period for demanding a distribution, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to receive a dividend in the instant distribution procedure based on the claims, such as the subcontract price

C. As to whether the Plaintiff has the right to receive a dividend in the status of the full right holder

1) As between Drara and Dra, a notary public’s No. 2013 No. 2013 written deed was prepared, and the title of the deed was assigned to the non-party corporation, and the district court 2013 other bond ○○○○○○○○○, among the claim for construction cost based on the instant contract that the non-party corporation had against D and D, applied for an attachment and assignment order, and received the assignment order on February 14, 2013. The Plaintiff entered into an assignment contract with D and D on July 18, 2013 with the purport that the Plaintiff acquired the entire amount of the ○○○○○○ upon the assignment order of D and D, as seen earlier.

2) However, in this case, the Plaintiff did not submit any specific data that could identify the reason why the Plaintiff was liable for 2.5 billion won for Dada with respect to Dada in this case, as well as the reason why the Plaintiff acquired the claim amounting to KRW 2.5 billion from Dara with respect to the claim amount of KRW 2.5 billion. Furthermore, according to the foregoing, the Plaintiff received part of the Dada landscaping construction from Dada on July 15, 2013, and the subcontract price was limited to KRW 00,00,000, and the Dada construction was settled after conducting a claim and debt confirmation examination on 2BL construction around April 2014, even though the Dada construction price was equal to KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,0000,0000 from Dada, which was long as the date of entering into the subcontract, and the Plaintiff did not fully receive the claim amount from ○○○○○.

3) In light of such circumstances, it is insufficient to view that only the facts acknowledged in the above paragraph 1 are the sole fact that Dara bears the obligation equivalent to ○○○○○ Won against Ra, or that the Plaintiff was actually taking over the obligation based on the assignment order No. 2 assignment order from Ra, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

4) Therefore, even if the Plaintiff has the right to receive dividends in the instant distribution procedure as a full right holder

shall not be deemed to exist.

D. As to the portion of the instant deposit prohibited from seizure, the Plaintiff is preferentially reimbursed.

With respect to the existence of rights

1) Under Article 88(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the contract amount of the construction works contracted to a constructor

Article 88(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry prohibits seizure of the amount equivalent to wages to be paid to workers of the relevant construction work (including subcontracted construction work). The prohibition of seizure of the amount equivalent to wages to be paid to workers of the relevant construction work out of the contract amount of a construction work is derived from the demand of social security under the Constitution to ensure the stability of workers’ livelihood by allowing workers to receive wages from the said contract price by preventing the seizure of the portion corresponding to wages to be paid to workers by the general creditors of the constructor to the part corresponding to wages to be paid to workers among the contract amount of the construction work.

2) The plaintiff asserts that the ○○○○ out of the deposit money of the non-party corporation should be preferentially distributed to the plaintiff, as the creditors cannot seize multiple obligees pursuant to Article 88(1) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

3) However, the Plaintiff is a multi-level subcontractor who entered into the instant subcontract with Dda. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff paid ○○○○○○○○, which has exceeded the above money, as wages, to its employees. However, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff, a subcontractor, has the status of workers with regard to an amount equivalent to the labor cost out of the claim for the construction cost against Daehan, or that the amount equivalent to the labor cost paid by the Plaintiff to its employees, is “an amount equivalent to the wages that the Plaintiff would have to pay to its employees,” and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s claim should be protected in preference to the ordinary creditors with regard to Dda, such as claims prohibited from seizure.

4) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

E. Sub-committee

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to receive dividends in the instant distribution procedure, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, without further examining whether the Defendants are entitled to receive dividends in the instant distribution procedure.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed in entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.