Priority in Insolvency Proceedings

( Soogeun Oh ),( Heejong Song ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2008 Journal of Korean Law Vol.7 No.2

Insolvency unveils the genuine virtue of the concept of priority. Attempts, however, have proved that the task of arranging relevant claims in a single line of order according to their priority is quite difficult and complicated in insolvency proceedings. The reason lies in the fact that the concept of priority contains three factors; time, amount and method of collection. In standard non-insolvency compulsory executions, the priority structure affords certain claims to clearly precede others in time and amount. In this case, the superior creditor is entitled to be paid in full before and to the exclusion of other junior creditors. There is no other method of collection. Priority structures differ with respect to each particular insolvency proceeding. Like noninsolvency execution procedures, the bankruptcy proceeding relates to the distribution of the value of the property belonging to the debtor as of the date of the proceeding. Secured claims are not restricted by the bankruptcy proceeding. As such, it is possible to arrange estate claims and bankruptcy claims in a single line of order. The rehabilitation proceeding, which aims to rehabilitate the debtor and to repay creditors using not only the assets belonging to the debtor at present but also future earnings, retains a complicated priority structure. Since creditors are to be paid according to the terms and conditions of the rehabilitation plan over a period which may extend for as long as ten years, the governing rule of priority in the rehabilitation proceeding is difficult to understand without distinguishing the separate components of the concept; time , amount and method of collection. Creditors with the right of reclamation or right of separation are not subjected to the rehabilitation proceeding. Creditors with common benefit claims are subjected to the rehabilitation proceeding but not to the rehabilitation plan. These creditors in effect enjoy priority over other creditors who are subjected to the rehabilitation proceeding with respect to the method of collection. Nevertheless, to generalize that common benefit creditors have priority over other creditors in terms of time and amount would be inaccurate. The chance that other creditors will be paid no later in time and no less in amount than common benefit creditors exists. Although Article 217 of the DRBL provides the respective priorities of secured rehabilitation claims, rehabilitation claims and stock/equity, the list does not mean that creditors in a higher position are to be paid prior to and more than those in a lower position. The rehabilitation plan may provide general rehabilitation creditors payment before secured rehabilitation creditors. According to precedents and prevailing theories, the hierarchy given in Article 217 does not mean superior creditors are entitled to absolute priority, but rather fair and equitable discrimination between each rank is required. Creditors in the same class can be treated differently as far as the discrimination is reasonable. The bottom floor of such flexibility is the assurance of the liquidation value. It is fair to say that priority in the rehabilitation proceeding is not as rigid as in the bankruptcy proceeding and partly negotiable as far as the liquidation value is assured. The rehabilitation plan, a reflection of the negotiations, shows the final list of priority, which is decided in separate terms of time and amount. In comparison, priority in the rehabilitation proceeding for individuals is rather simple because secured creditors are not restricted by the proceeding and the payment plan covers only general creditors. We found that priority in insolvency proceedings cannot be explained by a list that simply lines one claim after another. It is necessary to consider the factors of time, amount and method of collection in order to understand the priority structure in insolvency proceedings. Rights of reclamation and the right of separation in effect give priority to its holders because properties related to such rights are beyond the reach of even creditors with the highest priority. Any property that is not included in insolvency estates also ignores priority. Beside insolvency laws and laws directly related to debt collection, several laws have provisions that alter the priority of certain types of creditors with respect to the amount or method of collection. These also provide causes that make it difficult to explain priority in insolvency proceeding with a linear list. A separate approach to the issue of priority in terms of time and amount will serve as the solution to ease such complexity.

(N, n)-Preemptive Repeat-Different Priority Queues

Kilhwan Kim(김길환) 한국산업경영시스템학회 2017 한국산업경영시스템학회지 Vol.40 No.3

Priority disciplines are an important scheme for service systems to differentiate their services for different classes of customers. (N, n)-preemptive priority disciplines enable system engineers to fine-tune the performances of different classes of customers arriving to the system. Due to this virtue of controllability, (N, n)-preemptive priority queueing models can be applied to various types of systems in which the service performances of different classes of customers need to be adjusted for a complex objective. In this paper, we extend the existing (N, n)-preemptive resume and (N, n)-preemptive repeat-identical priority queueing models to the (N, n)-preemptive repeat-different priority queueing model. We derive the queue-length distributions in the M/G/1 queueing model with two classes of customers, under the (N, n)-preemptive repeat-different priority discipline. In order to derive the queue-length distributions, we employ an analysis of the effective service time of a low-priority customer, a delay cycle analysis, and a joint transformation method. We then derive the first and second moments of the queue lengths of high- and low-priority customers. We also present a numerical example for the first and second moments of the queue length of high- and low-priority customers. Through doing this, we show that, under the (N, n)-preemptive repeat-different priority discipline, the first and second moments of customers with high priority are bounded by some upper bounds, regardless of the service characteristics of customers with low priority. This property may help system engineers design such service systems that guarantee the mean and variance of delay for primary users under a certain bounds, when preempted services have to be restarted with another service time resampled from the same service time distribution.

조세우선권 제도의 비교법적 검토와 국내 제도 개선 방향에 대한 고찰

정승영 한국세법학회 2023 조세법연구 Vol.29 No.2

This paper comprehensively examines the relative priority regimes of tax liens in Korea, focusing on Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes(hereafter FANT) and Article 71 of the Framework Act on Local Taxes(hereafter FALT). When exploring the fundamental elements of the tax liens priority regime, the relative priority regimes of tax liens in Korea are based on “temporal priority"(First in time, first in priority) and “external perceptibility"(objections to the enforcement of secret liens), which establishes the relative priority of tax liens. In connection with the fundamental elements, there are specific characteristics related to the relative priority regimes of tax liens, such as the super-priority of listed liens in the FANT and the FALT, and the special priority approach concerning legislative listed taxes of the FANT and the FALT(so-called “Dang-hae” Taxes), etc. In the Second Chapter, it comparatively scrutinizes countries managing the relative priority regimes of tax liens:Japan and the United States. These countries also consider “temporal priority" and “external perceptibility" as the fundamental elements of the relative priority regimes of tax liens. On the other hand, It also reviews the case of Germany which does not have the original priority regime for tax liens and only relies on the civil enforcement Code, and the case of the UK, where the relative priority regimes of tax liens were abolished and later partially revived. Based on the comparative analysis of similarities and differences between domestic and foreign regimes, it outlines the general direction points for improving the relative priority regimes of tax liens in Korea. The main recommendations of this paper are as follows:amending the articles of disclosing taxpayer’s delinquency information and explaining reasonable and partial amending points of the special priority regime concerning legislative listed taxes, etc. 본고에서는 국세기본법 제35조 및 지방세기본법 제71조를 중심으로 국내의 조세우선권 제도에 관한 내용을 전반적으로 살펴보고, 그 제도의 기반 요소는 어떠한 내용인지를살펴보았다. 조세우선의 원칙은 ‘시간적 순서에서의 동일 및 우선’과 ‘외부 인지 가능성’ 에 기초하여 조세채권의 우선순위가 결정되도록 그 주요 기반 요소를 두고 있다. 이와관련하여 조세우선권 제도와 관련하여 주요 특정의 사항[강제징수 관련 공익비용 등, 법정의 최우선변제권이 있는 경우, 당해세(當該稅)에 대해서 우선순위 상 선순위를 점할수 있는 특징]들도 있다. 이러한 특성들을 중심으로 하여 국내 조세우선권 제도의 개선방향을 모색하고자 조세우선권 제도를 둔 국가의 사례(일본, 미국)와 조세우선권 제도를 두지 않거나 아주 제한하는 국가의 사례(독일, 영국)에 대한 내용을 검토하였다. 비교법적 검토 대상 국가 제도의 사례 중 조세우선권 제도를 두고 있는 국가들(일본, 미국)은 우리나라와 유사하게 기본적으로 ‘시간적 순서에서의 우선’, ‘외부 인지 가능성’ 등을 고려하여 조세우선권 제도를 구성하고 있다. 또한 국내 당해세(當該稅) 제도와 유사하게 특정의 세목에 대해서 우선할 수 있는 제도를 두고 있다. 이외에도 민사법 등 다른 제도의 영향으로 조세채권보다 우선할 수 있는 경우 등도 있어 우리와의 차이점이 있으며, 조세채권 상호 간에서 우선순위를 압류선착주의와 더불어 교부선착수주의를 사용하는 경우도 있었다. 반면, 독일과 같이 조세우선권 제도가 없는 상태에서 민사 강제집행 절차에 의존하는 구조의 경우에도 강제집행법 상 관련 조항을 통해 우리나라의 당해세(當該稅)와 유사한 세목 등에 대해서 법정 담보물권보다 우선할 수 있도록 하는 내용 은 반영되어 있다는 점, 조세우선권 제도 중 폐지하였다가 일부 내용을 부활시킨 영국의 제도 사례 등도 살펴보았다. 국내 제도와의 유사점과 차이점을 비교법적 검토를 통해 살펴봄에 따라 국내 제도의개선 방향을 개괄적으로 정리해 제시하면 다음과 같다. 우선 조세우선권 제도는 실질적으로는 과세권자, 납세자, 제3의 채권자 등이 얽혀있는 다면적 관계에서 우선순위를 판단하는 기준을 정해둔 제도이므로, 독일과 같이 민사 강제집행 절차로의 편입 또는 일원화 방향을 선택하는 것은 민사집행법 개편까지 함께 하여야 하는 난점이 있다는 점이다. 더불어 국내의 조세우선권 제도는 제3의 채권자가 과세권자 및 납세자와 비교하여 볼때, 상대적 정보열위의 상황이므로, 이에 대한 보완 방식이 필요하다는 점을 최근 개정된 미납국세 열람 제도 내용 등과 함께 고찰하였다. 더불어 당해세(當該稅)는 물세(物 稅)로서의 특징만 순수하게 고수한다고 하면 해당 내용에 대해서 우선순위를 부여하는것이 합리성이 있다는 점을 제시하였으며, 기타사항으로 유치권 등에 관한 취급과 조세채권 상호 간의 우선순위 부여 기준(교부선착수주의)에 관한 검토도 비교법적 검토 사항에 비춰 살펴보았다.

Bus Signal Priority Strategies for Multi-directional Bus Routes

김수현,전경수,Minchoul Park 대한토목학회 2012 KSCE JOURNAL OF CIVIL ENGINEERING Vol.16 No.5

Though the Bus Signal Priority (BSP) system is well known as an effective way to enhance the service quality of bus travel, the effectiveness of the BSP system significantly depends on the traffic and network conditions. Particularly, most previous use of the BSP system were applied as a corridor-based strategy targeting a few bus lines moving on a corridor; hence existing BSP systems cannot guarantee the service quality of all of the buses in a complex and congested network conflicted by numerous bus lines. Therefore, an appropriate signal priority strategy should be identified before the introduction of a BSP system according to the network conditions. As an alternative to the corridor-based signal priority strategy, this study proposes a Multi-directional Bus Signal Priority (MBSP) approach and analyzes the effectiveness of different priority strategies given various network conditions using the simulation tool Paramics. In addition, to manage conflicting and competing requests, a priority-based rule is proposed and compared with the First-In-First-Service (FIFS) rule. The simulation results showed that a corridor-based BSP was effective for a concentrated bus network, whereas it might deteriorate other traffic flows with little improvement of the bus service for a diverse bus network. For a diverse bus network, other strategies apart from the priority-based MBSP strategy cannot be expected to improve the reliability of bus service. Though the Bus Signal Priority (BSP) system is well known as an effective way to enhance the service quality of bus travel, the effectiveness of the BSP system significantly depends on the traffic and network conditions. Particularly, most previous use of the BSP system were applied as a corridor-based strategy targeting a few bus lines moving on a corridor; hence existing BSP systems cannot guarantee the service quality of all of the buses in a complex and congested network conflicted by numerous bus lines. Therefore, an appropriate signal priority strategy should be identified before the introduction of a BSP system according to the network conditions. As an alternative to the corridor-based signal priority strategy, this study proposes a Multi-directional Bus Signal Priority (MBSP) approach and analyzes the effectiveness of different priority strategies given various network conditions using the simulation tool Paramics. In addition, to manage conflicting and competing requests, a priority-based rule is proposed and compared with the First-In-First-Service (FIFS) rule. The simulation results showed that a corridor-based BSP was effective for a concentrated bus network, whereas it might deteriorate other traffic flows with little improvement of the bus service for a diverse bus network. For a diverse bus network, other strategies apart from the priority-based MBSP strategy cannot be expected to improve the reliability of bus service.

에큐메니칼 선교에 있어서 ‘우선순위’ 문제

안승오(Seung-Oh Ahn) 영남신학대학교 2014 신학과 목회 Vol.41 No.-

Mission is a ministry including various works and multi dimensional goals. Since mission is such an inclusive ministry, we cannot but think of ‘priority’ issue when we carry out mission. Because of this reason, there have been a long conflict between so called ecumenical and evangelical wings in relation to ‘priority’ issue. In these days, of course, both wings use the term ‘wholistic mission’, and thus the matter of priority seems not a problem anymore to the two parties. However, as I mentioned above, priority issuse is still a crucial matter to enhance the efficiency of mission. This paper investigated a brief survey of the ecumenical mission in relation to ‘priority’ to know the flow of priority issue in ecumenical mission history. Through this study I found out that roughly there were three stages in ecumenical mission theology in relation to priority. First is the period (1910 - 1951) which considered ‘evangelization’ as the top priority of mission. Second is the time (1952- 1974) when ecumenical movement put emphasis on so called ‘humanization.’ Then final (1975 - today) is the period that pursues ‘wholistic mission’ which disregards priority in mission. The wholistic mission neglecting priority has some strengths and weakness at the same time. It can help us to have a balance between evangelization and social responsibility in mission. This might be a best contribution of the wholistic mission concept. However, I found out some seriousness weaknesses as well. They are the possibility of confusing the concept of mission, the possibility of diminishing efficiency of mission, the possibility of weakening potential of the church, and so on. Since the wholistic mission which does not consider priority has these kinds of various weaknesses, we need to think of the issue of priority seriously to accomplish the goal of world evangelization effectively.

Differentiated CW Policy and Strict Priority Policy for Location-Independent End-to-End Delay in Multi-Hop Wireless Mesh Networks

BAE, Yun Han,KIM, Kyung Jae,PARK, Jin Soo,CHOI, Bong Dae The Institute of Electronics, Information and Comm 2010 IEICE TRANSACTIONS ON COMMUNICATIONS - Vol.93 No.7

<P>We investigate delay analysis of multi-hop wireless mesh network (WMN) where nodes have multi-channel and multiple transceivers to increase the network capacity. The functionality of the multi-channel and multiple transceivers allows the whole WMN to be decomposed into disjoint zones in such a way that <I>i)</I> nodes in a zone are within one-hop distance, and relay node and end nodes with different <I>CW<SUB>min</SUB></I>s contend to access the channel based on IEEE 802.11e EDCA, <I>ii)</I> different channels are assigned to neighbor zones to prevent the hidden node problem, <I>iii)</I> relay nodes can transmit and receive the packets simultaneously by multi-channel and multiple transceivers. With this decomposition of the network, we focus on the delay at a single zone and then the end-to-end delay can be obtained as the sum of zone-delays. In order to have the location-independent end-to-end delay to the gateway regardless of source nodes' locations, we propose two packet management schemes, called the <I>differentiated CW policy</I> and the <I>strict priority policy</I>, at each relay node where relay packets with longer hop count are buffered in higher priority queues according to their experienced hop count. For the <I>differentiated CW policy</I>, a relay node adopts the functionality of IEEE 802.11e EDCA where a higher priority queue has a shorter minimum contention window. We model a typical zone as a one-hop IEEE 802.11e EDCA network under non-saturation condition where priority queues have different packet arrival rates and different minimum contention window sizes. First, we find the PGF (probability generating function) of the HoL-delay of packets at priority queues in a zone. Second, by modeling each queue as <I>M/G/</I>1 queue with the HoL-delay as a service time, we obtain the packet delay (the sum of the queueing delay and the HoL-delay) of each priority queue in a zone. Third, the average end-to-end delay of packet generated at end node in each zone is obtained by summing up the packet delays at each zone. For the <I>strict priority policy</I>, we regard a relay node as a single queueing system with multiple priority queues where relay packets in priority queues are served in the order of strict priority. Relay node has smaller <I>CW<SUB>min</SUB></I> than end node has and relay node competes with end nodes in a zone. Using the PGF of HoL-delay of packet at relay node and end node, we obtain the packet delay in a zone. The average end-to-end delay to the gateway generated at end node in each zone is obtained. Finally, for both the differentiated CW policy and strict priority policy, by equating all end-to-end delays to be approximately equal, we find the minimum contention window sizes of each priority queue numerically by trial and error method so that end-to-end delays of packets are almost equal regardless of their source's location, respectively. Numerical results show that proposed two methods obtain almost same end-to-end delay of packets regardless of their generated locations and our analytical results are shown to be well matched with the simulation results.</P>

(N, n)-선점 재샘플링-반복 우선순위 대기행렬

김길환 한국산업경영시스템학회 2017 한국산업경영시스템학회지 Vol.40 No.3

Priority disciplines are an important scheme for service systems to differentiate their services for different classes of customers. (N, n)-preemptive priority disciplines enable system engineers to fine-tune the performances of different classes of customers arriving to the system. Due to this virtue of controllability, (N, n)-preemptive priority queueing models can be applied to various types of systems in which the service performances of different classes of customers need to be adjusted for a complex objective. In this paper, we extend the existing (N, n)-preemptive resume and (N, n)-preemptive repeat-identical priority queueing models to the (N, n)-preemptive repeat-different priority queueing model. We derive the queue-length distributions in the M/G/1 queueing model with two classes of customers, under the (N, n)-preemptive repeat-different priority discipline. In order to derive the queue-length distributions, we employ an analysis of the effective service time of a low-priority customer, a delay cycle analysis, and a joint transformation method. We then derive the first and second moments of the queue lengths of high- and low-priority customers. We also present a numerical example for the first and second moments of the queue length of high- and low-priority customers. Through doing this, we show that, under the (N, n)-preemptive repeat-different priority discipline, the first and second moments of customers with high priority are bounded by some upper bounds, regardless of the service characteristics of customers with low priority. This property may help system engineers design such service systems that guarantee the mean and variance of delay for primary users under a certain bounds, when preempted services have to be restarted with another service time resampled from the same service time distribution.

드론 시스템을 위한 메시지 우선순위 기반 TCP 통신 알고리즘

최준혁(Joon Hyuck Choi),김보람(Bo Ram Kim),이동익(Dong Ik Lee) 한국전자통신학회 2018 한국전자통신학회 논문지 Vol.13 No.3

TCP는 메시지 전송에 광범위하게 쓰이는 잘 알려진 송수신 프로토콜이다. TCP의 긴급 메커니즘은 우선순위가 높은 메시지를 전송할 때 규칙 역할을 한다. 긴급 메커니즘은 우선순위가 높은 메시지의 발생 사실을 수신 노드에 미리 알려줌으로써 수신 노드로 하여금 미리 준비하도록 돕는다. 하지만 TCP의 긴급 메커니즘은 우선순위가 높은 메시지의 즉시 또는 빠른 전송을 보장하지는 않는다. 따라서 TCP에 보통 메시지의 신뢰적인 전송과 메시지의 우선순위에 따른 차별 전송 기능을 제공하기 위에 우선순위 기반 전송의 기능이 필요하다. 본 논문은 TCP 프로토콜을 위한 멀티 쓰레드 환경에서의 우선순위 규를 이용한 우선순위 기반 전송 알고리즘을 제안한다. 제안된 알고리즘의 효율성은 다른 우선순위 레벨을 가진 여러 메시지를 전송하는 실험 환경을 통해 검증되었다. TCP is a well-known communication protocol which is widely used for reliable message transmissions. The urgent mechanism of TCP plays a key role to transmit messages with a high priority. If a high priority message occurs at the transmitting node, the urgent mechanism informs the receiving node about the presence of a high priority message prior to its transmission so that the receiving node can be prepared for handling this message in advance. This implies that the existing urgent mechanism of TCP does not guarantee an immediate or faster delivery of the high priority message itself. Therefore, the ability of priority-based transmission is required on TCP not only to ensure reliable transmissions of normal messages but also to offer a differentiated service according to the priority of message. This paper presents a priority-based transmission algorithm over TCP using a priority queue in a multi-threaded environment. The effectiveness of the proposed algorithm is explored using an experimental setup in which various messages with different priority levels are transmitted.

MicroC/OS-2 실시간 운영체제에서의 우선순위 역전현상 해결을 위한 일시적 우선순위 교환 프로토콜 설계 및 구현

전영식 ( Young Sik Jeon ),김병곤 ( Byung Kon Kim ),허신 ( Heu Shin ) 한국정보처리학회 2009 정보처리학회논문지 A Vol.16 No.6

실시간 운영체제는 효율적인 스케줄링, 최소화된 인터럽트 지연, 우선순위 역전현상 해결 등의 다양한 조건을 만족시킴과 동시에, 응용프로그램이 정해진 기한 내에 수행되는 것을 보장하여야 한다. 따라서 실시간 운영체제는 상기 조건을 만족시킬 수 있도록 설계/개발되어야 한다. 대중적인 실시간 커널의 한 종류인 MicroC/OS-II에서는 우선순위 역전 현상에 대한 해결 기법으로 뮤텍스(Mutex)를 사용한 기본적인 우선순위 상속(Basic Priority Inheritance) 프로토콜을 사용한다. 뮤텍스를 구현하려면 우선순위가 같은 여러 태스크를 사용할 수 있도록 커널이 지원해야 하나 MicroC/OS-II 운영체제는 우선순위가 같은 여러 태스크의 동시 사용을 지원하지 않는다. 이를 해결하기 위해 추가적인 우선순위 예약을 사용할 수밖에 없게 되고, 결과적으로 제한된 우선순위 자원을 낭비하게 된다. 본 논문에서는 MicroC/OS-II의 불필요한 우선순위 자원을 낭비하는 문제점을 해결할 수 있는 일시적 우선순위 교환 프로토콜(Temporary Priority Swapping Protocol; TPSP)을 설계 및 구현하여, 한정된 자원 환경을 가진 임베디드 장비에 효율적으로 운용되도록 하는데 목적을 둔다. Real-time operating systems must have satisfying various conditions such as effective scheduling policies, minimized interrupt delay, resolved priority inversion problems, and its applications to be completed within desired deadline. The real-time operating systems, therefore, should be designed and developed to be optimal for these requirements. MicroC/OS-II, a kind of Real-time operating systems, uses the basic priority inheritance with a mutex to solve priority inversion problems. For the implementation of mutex, the kernel in an operating system should provide supports for numerous tasks with same priority. However, MicroC/OS-II does not provide this support for the numerous tasks of same priority. To solve this problem, MicroC/OS-II cannot but using priority reservation, which leads to the waste of unnecessary resources. In this study, we have dealt with new design a protocol, so called TPSP(Temporary Priority Swap Protocol), by an effective solution for above-mentioned problem, eventually enabling embedded systems with constrained resources environments to run applications.

민사집행에 있어서 압류채권자에 대한 평등주의와 우선주의

김경욱 한국민사집행법학회 2012 民事執行法硏究 : 韓國民事執行法學會誌 Vol.8 No.-

금전채권에 기한 강제집행절차에서 압류채권자 이외에 다른 채권자가 강제 집행절차에 참가하는 경우 이들 채권자들을 어떻게 취급할 것인지에 관해 각 국에서는 그 법적 토양과 실체법질서 등과의 관계를 고려하여 다양한 기준이 제시되고 있으며, 이는 크게 독일과 영미제국이 채택하고 있는 우선주의, 우리 나라와 프랑스 민사소송법이 채택하고 있는 평등주의 및 스위스의 군단우선 주의로 나뉘어 발전하였다. 우선주의는 강제집행절차에 참가한 순서에 따라 먼저 강제집행에 착수하여 압류한 채권자에게 우선적으로 그 채권의 전부에 대해 만족을 얻을 수 있는 권리를 주는 것인 반면, 평등주의는 어떤 채권자에 의해 개시된 강제집행절차에 참가한 모든 채권자를 평등하게 취급하는 주의 로서 만약 채권자의 만족에 제공할 수 있는 채무자의 재산이 총채권액에 미치 지 못하는 경우에는 각 채권자의 채권액에 비례하여 배당이 이루어지게 된다. 군단우선주의는 이러한 양자의 중간적 단계에 해당하는 입장을 취하여 채권 자가 집행절차에 참가한 시점을 몇 개의 기간으로 나누어 선순위 기간에 절차 에 참가한 채권자들(군단)에게는 우선주의를 취하여 배당에 우선권을 부여하 고, 각 군단내의 채권자들 사이에는 평등주의를 취하여 평등한 배당이 이루어 지도록 하는 것이다. 본 논문은 현재 우리나라가 취하고 있는 평등주의가 과연 정당한 것인가에 대한 의문에서 출발하여 보다 합리적인 배당순위에 대한 기준을 모색해 보는 것을 목적으로 한다. 이를 위해 우선주의, 평등주의 및 군단우선주의를 취하 고 있는 주요국가들의 입법상황에 대해 살펴보고 각 제도들이 가지는 장점과 단점에 대해 비교분석해 보았다. 나아가 평등주의를 따르고 있는 우리 민사집 행절차의 문제점과 이를 극복하기 위한 지금까지의 우리의 노력에 대해서도 살펴보았다. 나아가 이러한 논의를 바탕으로 우선주의가 가지는 집행절차를 단순화하고 간명하게 할 수 있다는 이점에 터잡아 개별강제집행의 영역에서 우선주의의 채택에 대한 긍정적 의견을 피력해 보았다. In those cases where creditors other than the enforcing creditor participate in the enforcement of a case arising out of a claim for money, different legal systems have presented different standards depending on their legal environment and the relationship to the substantive legal order. These standards have three main branches including the principle of priority distribution seen in the German and Anglo-American legal systems, the principle of equal distribution seen in the Korean and French Civil Procedure Codes, and the principle of group priority distribution as seen in Switzerland. The priority distribution principle depends on the order in which the creditor participated in the enforcement proceedings; the creditor who first started the enforcement and attached the property subject to credit gains the first right to satisfy the entirety of the clam. The equal distribution principle treats all creditors who participated in an enforcement proceeding against a debtor equally; if debtor assets that may be provided toward satisfying the credit is less than the total amount of the debt, the proceeds of the enforcement shall be divided pro rata according to the proportion each creditor is owed in proportion to the entire amount of debt. The group priority distribution principle takes a path between the two, dividing the time period at which the creditor participated in the enforcement proceedings and applying the priority principle to those creditors who participated in the process during the priority period (the group) by giving the group priority in the distribution, while applying the equal distribution principle to creditors within each group by giving them pro rata distribution. This paper begins with the question of whether the equal distribution principle in Korean law is justifiable, and aims to explore standards for a more reasonable distribution priority. To this end, it examines the major legal systems that have elected for the principles of priority distribution, equal distribution, and group priority distribution, and compares and analyzes the strengths and drawbacks of each. Furthermore, it examines the problems in Korean civil enforcement proceedings and its application of the equal distribution principle, and efforts to overcome these problems. Furthermore, based on the foregoing analysis, it puts forward a positive argument for a legislative change to priority distribution principle in individual judicial enforcement proceedings based on the strength of the priority distribution principle in simplifying and clarifying the enforcement process.