The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s primary claim that the distribution schedule should be revised by allocating the total amount to the Plaintiff, while the Defendant was not in the position to receive dividends in the instant distribution procedure, as the Plaintiff is the only creditor with K.

The plaintiff's claim against K does not exist or becomes null and void due to collusion, and the plaintiff's payment order against K became final and conclusive, the reason why it is insufficient to recognize the claim was presented.

Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim seeking rectification of the distribution schedule on behalf of K’s pecuniary claims.

The reason was that there is no evidence that the plaintiff has claims against K, and that there is no need to preserve the plaintiff's claims because the plaintiff's insolvency cannot be recognized.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on objection to distribution, false representation of agreement, creditor subrogation lawsuit, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.