1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on December 15, 2016 by the said court with respect to the distribution procedure case B of the Incheon District Court, the defendant is against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Southern District Court for a payment order seeking the payment of goods price, etc. under the Seoul Southern-gu District Court No. 2015 tea17053 against E, who operated the Smarket in the name of “Dma” on the Nam-gu C and 1st underground level, and the said court issued the payment order ordering the payment of goods price, etc. on December 15, 2015 and damages for delay.

The above payment order was finalized around that time.

B. On April 8, 2016, the Plaintiff received a claim for the amount of KRW 5,265,658 as the claim amount and received a seizure and collection order (In Incheon District Court 2016TTB 8200) with respect to the sales-price claim that E holds against the non-CC Card Co., Ltd., and the above seizure and collection order was served on the non-CC Card Co., Ltd. on April 12, 2016.

C. When the seizure of the Plaintiff et al. competes with each other, the Sch Card Co., Ltd. deposited KRW 6,966,283 with this court’s 2016-9431, and the distribution procedure was conducted under this court’s B with respect to the deposit.

In the above distribution procedure, the court of execution prepared a distribution schedule that the defendant distributes the total amount of KRW 6,938,530 to the defendant on December 15, 2016 on the ground that he/she is a wage creditor. D.

The Plaintiff brought an objection to KRW 5,265,658 out of the amount of dividends of the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant is not an employee who is the actual operator of DNA E's work and is not an employee who holds wage claims against D's work E. Thus, the part equivalent to the plaintiff's claim amount out of the dividend amount against the defendant should be deleted and distributed to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant was the president of the monthly salary who received the monthly salary from the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant’s dividends are justifiable.

3. Determination

A. The burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution in a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution is also in accordance with the principle of distribution in general civil procedure.