2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. From February 6, 2017 to September 30, 2017, the Plaintiff, as a human resource dispatch company, dispatched Nonparty KimA (hereinafter referred to as “GlaA”), who is an employee of the Plaintiff, to Nonparty BB engineering (hereinafter referred to as “foreign company”).

B. The Plaintiff paid the benefits from February 2017 to August 2017 to KimA, and the benefits from September 2017 were paid by KimA by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation upon receiving a substitute payment with the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

C. On the ground that the non-party company did not pay to the Plaintiff the commission for the dispatch of employees from June 2017 to September 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the commission for the dispatch of employees (Seoul Central District Court 2017Gao○○○○○) and received a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff in favor of the non-party company, and seized the claim against the Non-party company onCC.

D. In order to repay the debt to the non-party company, CCTV deposited KRW 4,275,319 with Suwon District Court 2018 ○○○○○○○○○○○, and the said court 2018 ○○○○○○○, which was in progress with respect to the distribution of the deposit money. The Korea Administrative Court prepared a distribution schedule in the said distribution procedure that distributes the full amount of the deposit money to the defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution procedure”).

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff’s claim against Nonparty Company constitutes a worker KimA’s wage claim dispatched by the Plaintiff, and thus, the priority of the distribution of the claim takes precedence over the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s exclusion from the distribution of this case is in itself a discriminatory treatment based on the ground that KimA is a dispatched contract position. As such, the instant distribution schedule ought to be revised to KRW 4,024,00,000 distributed to the Defendant, and to KRW 4,024,00,000 as the dividend amount against the Plaintiff, respectively.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

National taxes shall be collected in preference to other public charges or other claims pursuant to Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes: Provided, That under Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act or Article 12 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, the claims arising from wages, retirement allowances, accident compensation, and other labor relations shall take precedence over national taxes or additional dues.

2) Stoptop

As alleged by the Plaintiff, it is deemed whether the temporary agency fee that the Plaintiff did not receive from the non-party company is identical to the worker's wage claim against the non-party company, the temporary agency worker, and its substance, and thus, the right to preferential payment is recognized than national tax pursuant to the above provision. In this regard, the following is examined: (a) the Plaintiff's employee was subscribed to the National Pension Scheme; and (b) various insurance are reported as the Plaintiff's employee. Ultimately, in the case of KimA who was dispatched to the non-party company, only constitutes the Plaintiff's employee who entered into the labor contract with the Plaintiff; and (c) the non-party company cannot be viewed as an employee in relation to the non-party company. Therefore, the employer who entered into a labor contract with the KimA is the Plaintiff; and (d) the Plaintiff's claim against the non-party company is merely a commercial claim that the

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the dividend of this case is unlawful on the premise that the claim against the non-party company falls under the employee’s wage claim cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.