도산등사실인정 거부처분 취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Details of the disposition;
A. The options test Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “observer test”) is a company that has employed approximately 30 full-time workers and engaged in e-mail manufacturing business, etc. at 22, Da-ro 62-ro, Gwangju Northern-gu, Seoul.
B. Around June 12, 2006, the Plaintiff joined the options test and retired from office on January 28, 2013, and was not paid approximately KRW 14.6 million (including retirement allowances).
C. On June 5, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for recognition of bankruptcy, etc. regarding options as prescribed by Article 7 of the former Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Act No. 12528, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25630, Sept. 24, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) on the grounds that options are not capable of paying wages and retirement allowances.
On February 21, 2014, the Defendant issued a disposition not to recognize bankruptcy, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”) against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the option test has been conducted by an employee in office, and there is a business registration certificate and an office, and it cannot be deemed a process of discontinuance or discontinuance of business, such as the place of business is in operation.”
E. The Plaintiff dissatisfied with the instant disposition and filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission on April 10, 2014, but the appeal was dismissed on August 12, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes;
A. In light of various circumstances at the time of the instant disposition, the Plaintiff’s option test satisfies the requirement that “a project is in the process of discontinuance” under Article 5(1)2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act.
Nevertheless, the instant disposition on a different premise is unlawful against the former Wage Claim Guarantee Act.
B. Relevant statutes.