The judgment below

Among the Defendant Appointors, the remaining Defendant Appointors, excluding the Defendant (Appointeds).

1. The grounds of appeal are examined ex officio prior to the determination.

An objection against a distribution schedule shall be raised against a debtor and a creditor who appeared on the date of distribution, stated as being distributed to such distribution schedule. However, in a case where the selected parties are selected in the distribution procedure, only the designated parties who are not the designated parties are in the position to be apportioned as such creditors. Thus, only the designated parties are the parties and the other parties are entitled to raise an objection against the distribution schedule.

In addition, if the designated party, who is a creditor, raises an objection against the designated party who is another creditor against all the amount stated as having been distributed, the joint interest between each of the designated parties and the designated parties is not extinguished. Thus, the designated parties cancelled the selection act against the executing court.

Unless there are special circumstances, such as that the appointed party has died or that the appointed party has become a party to a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution as the subject of objection against the distribution schedule and as the creditor who has become the other party to the lawsuit of demurrer against distribution.

Therefore, barring such special circumstances as above, a debtor or other creditor who has raised an objection to the total amount entered as a dividend against the designated party may file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the designated party as the defendant and seek rectification of the total amount entered as a dividend by the designated party, including the part to be reverted to the designated party.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da202490, Oct. 29, 2015). Meanwhile, a party’s correction of a party’s indication is unlawful, since it is permitted to the extent that the party’s identity is recognized as a matter of principle, on the other hand, to comprehensively confirm the contents and causes of the indication and claim recorded in the complaint.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da61243, Mar. 22, 1996).

The judgment below

(b) reasons; and