A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 35,932,968 won with 5% interest per annum from December 11, 2013 to September 26, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

2. 1/10 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

3. Paragraph 1(a) of this Article may be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 35,932,968 won and 17,415,659 won from December 9, 2011 to KRW 18,517,309. From March 26, 2013 to the service date of a copy of the application for amendment of the purport of the claim of this case, 5% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (the plaintiff reduced the claim of this case in the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. The Plaintiff concluded a guarantee insurance contract with Nonparty 1 and 2 as follows.

Non-party 1 (State 1), the insurance period of the insured as the principal debtor insurance contract, which is included in the main debtor insurance contract within the main sentence, is the joint and several surety of the insurance period, from January 20, 1996 to January 18, 200 to January 22, 200, the non-party 22 (State 2) contract date of Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. to October 1, 200 to October 5, 200.

Note 1) 1

Note 2) 2

B. Nonparty 1 and 2 did not pay the principal and interest to the insured. On May 11, 1999, the Plaintiff paid 110 million won insurance money in relation to the first contract to El Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., and on June 24, 1999, the Plaintiff paid 10 million won in relation to the second contract to Samsung Life and Marine Co., Ltd.

C. On November 19, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for indemnity claim against Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 pursuant to the contract No. 1 and sentenced to the judgment on November 19, 2009 that “The Plaintiff jointly and severally filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for indemnity claim amounting to KRW 26,618,426 and KRW 6,278,51, whichever is applicable, shall be 21% per annum from March 14, 2009 to the final delivery date of a copy of the complaint, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.” The above judgment was finalized on December 8, 2009 (the Busan District Court Decision 2009Da41561).

On July 15, 2009, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 2 in accordance with the second contract, and was sentenced to the judgment that "the non-party 2 shall pay to the plaintiff 13,475,674 won and 10,703,374 won, an amount equivalent to 19% per annum from October 26, 200 to the date of full payment." The above judgment became final and conclusive on August 1, 2009 (the Busan District Court 2009Gaso24088).

D. On March 21, 2013, based on the above final judgment based on the contract under the first contract, the Plaintiff was issued a decision to seize and collect the claim amounting to KRW 31,695,418 on March 21, 2013, with respect to the wage claim that Nonparty 2 had against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant District Court Branch Branch Order 2013TTTT 2093”) and the above written decision was served on the Defendant on March 25, 2013.

On December 6, 201, based on the above final judgment based on the above final judgment based on the contract No. 2, 201, the Plaintiff was issued a decision to seize and collect the claim amounting to KRW 36,029,589 with respect to the wage claim that Nonparty 2 had against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant District Court Decision No. 2011, 11371”) and the above written decision was served on the Defendant on December 8, 201.

Among each of the above claims seizure and collection orders, the indication of the claims to be seized and collected is indicated as follows:

1. Table 1 included in the main sentence: Where the debtor's monthly salary (this salary and various allowances and bonuses) paid by the third debtor from the third debtor is deducted from taxes and public charges; (a) monthly salary of at least 1.5 million won but not more than three million won: 1.5 million won - monthly salary of at least 3 million won but not more than 6 million won: 1.5 million won where monthly salary exceeds 6 million won: 1/200 of the monthly salary - Monthly salary - [3 million won + (monthly salary x 1.2-3 million won) x 1/2] 2. If the monthly salary or interim settlement is made between the amount of the above claim and the retirement allowance that the third debtor pays to the debtor upon retirement or interim settlement, the balance of the monthly salary or interim settlement and the amount of the honorary retirement allowance (or retirement allowance, etc. paid to the debtor under the category of the retirement allowance, etc.) which is prohibited by the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act within the extent of 1/2 of the aforementioned claim.

E. Meanwhile, during the period from March 2, 2011 to December 31, 2013, Nonparty 2 worked for the Defendant Company, and the wages and retirement allowances actually received from the Defendant Company during which Nonparty 2 served, are as follows.

The monthly salary of KRW 50,00 from March 201 to December 12, 2011 (Monthly 4) 7,432,90 won 42,56,100 won to December 42, 2012, KRW 42,577,100 to December 4, 2012, KRW 9,593,160 to December 12, 2012, KRW 53,570,000 to KRW 9,593,160 to December 12, 2012, KRW 53,976,840 to KRW 4,498,070 to KRW 65,00 to December 12, 2013, KRW 1080 to KRW 10,00, KRW 1030,00, KRW 1085,084, KRW 1658,584,587,09

Note 3) Actual Benefits

Note 4) Monthly salary

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who is the collection right holder at 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from December 201 to December 2013, 2013 at 64,313,627 won, among monthly salary and retirement pay to the non-party 2, the effect of the seizure as follows: 35,932,968 won and its related thereto, which the plaintiff seeks from December 11, 2013 to September 26, 2014, the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is the date of the decision of the court of first instance, to the extent that it is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the defendant's performance obligation, 10% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the date of full payment, and 20% per annum as to the execution creditor's claim against the third party debtor.

[Amount Claim under Effect of Attachment]

본문내 포함된 표 기간 급여 압류의 효력이 미치는 금액(주6) 2011. 12. (1개월) ① 4,256,710원 ⑥ 2,128,355원(=①×1/2) 2012. 1. ~ 2012. 12. (12개월) ② 각 4,498,070원 ⑦ 각 2,249,035원(=②×1/2) 2013. 1. ~ 2013. 12. (12개월) ③ 각 4,579,016원 ⑧ 각 2,289,508원(=③×1/2) 퇴직금 ⑨ 15,445,513원 ⑩ 7,722,756원(=⑨×1/2) 합계 64,313,627원(주7)

Note 6) The amount having the effect of seizure.

Note 7) 64,313,627

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that on November 22, 201, the payment against Nonparty 2 is liable to pay the remainder, excluding the amount proportional to the claim amount of the solar metal industry corporation after being served with a seizure and collection order on November 22, 201.

However, when the seizure is in competition, each seizure shall affect the whole of the claims (Article 235(1) and (2) of the Civil Execution Act), and even if several collection orders are issued with respect to the same claims, there is no order of priority between them, and the creditor collecting the claims upon the receipt of the collection order shall collect the claims from the third debtor for all creditors participating in the seizure or distribution as a kind of collection agency according to the execution order, as well as for the satisfaction of his own claims, and in cases where there exists any competition or demand for distribution as well as for the satisfaction of his own claims, the collection rights shall be limited to the total amount of the seized claims. If the third debtor pays the claims to the legitimate collection authority, its effect shall be limited to all creditors, and it shall not be repaid in proportion to the amount of the seized claims by both the creditor and other collection authorities (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da43819, Mar. 27, 2001). Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that, on September 20, 201, Nonparty 2 promised to borrow KRW 60 million from the Defendant and repay KRW 2 million from the monthly salary.

On the other hand, the purport of Article 43(1) main text of the Labor Standards Act stipulating that “The wages shall be paid in full to an employee in currency,” which declares the principle of full-time payment of wages is to prevent an employer from unilaterally deducting wages from the total amount of wages to protect an employee so as not to threaten the economic life of the employee. Thus, it is prohibited that an employer unilaterally offsets the employee’s wage claims with the employer’s claims against the employee with the employer’s consent. However, in a case where an employer offsets the employee’s wage claims with the employer’s consent, if there are objective reasons to recognize that the employer’s consent was based on the employee’s free will, the employer shall not be deemed to violate the main sentence of Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da25184, Oct. 23, 201). However, the statement in subparagraph 1 of Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act alone does not necessarily provide evidence to acknowledge that Nonparty 2 agreed with the Defendant’s free will, or agreed with the employee’s wages.

C. The defendant asserts that, according to Article 7 (1) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, the right to receive the benefit under the retirement pension plan shall not be transferred. Thus, the plaintiff's part concerning the retirement allowance of non-party 2 among the seizure and collection orders of this case is invalid as it violates the above Act.

On January 27, 2005, the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits (hereinafter "Retirement Benefits Act") was enacted on January 27, 2005 to contribute to the stable livelihood security of workers by prescribing matters necessary for the establishment and operation of the workers' retirement benefit system, and Article 7 prohibits transfer of the right to receive benefits under the retirement pension plan. Therefore, the provision prohibiting transfer of the right to receive benefits under the retirement pension plan constitutes a mandatory law. Therefore, a seizure order against the right to receive benefits under the retirement pension plan is null and void under the substantive law, and the third obligor may refuse payment on the claim for the collection of the seized claim (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da71180 Decided January 23, 2014).

Meanwhile, according to Article 2 of the Retirement Benefits Act, "retirement benefit scheme" refers to a defined benefit plan, a defined contribution plan, and a retirement benefit plan under Article 8 of the same Act (paragraph 6), "retirement pension plan" refers to a defined benefit plan, a defined contribution plan, a defined contribution plan, and an individual retirement pension plan (paragraph 7); "defined benefit plan" refers to a retirement pension plan (paragraph 8) in which the amount of benefits to be paid by an employee is determined in advance; and "defined contribution plan" refers to a retirement pension plan in which the amount of contributions to be paid by an employer for the payment of benefits is determined in advance (paragraph 9); and prohibiting transfer under Article 7 (1) of the same Act is "right to receive benefits of a retirement pension plan."

In the instant case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above retirement allowance claim against the Defendant by Nonparty 2, who was seized and collected by the Plaintiff, is one of the defined benefit plan, defined contribution plan, and individual retirement pension plan under the Retirement Benefits Act. Rather, according to the evidence No. 3-4, the claim by Nonparty 2, who was seized and collected by the Plaintiff, is considered as the right to receive the retirement allowance scheme under Article 8 of the Retirement Benefits Act. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on the premise that Nonparty 2’s retirement allowance claim is the right to receive the benefit under the retirement allowance plan under the Retirement Benefits Act is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair with the conclusion, it is accepted in part of the defendant's appeal, and it is decided as per Disposition with the decision of the court of first instance.

Judges Lee Jong-hee (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) hereinafter referred to as “First Agreement”).

Note 2) hereinafter referred to as “second-party contract”).

Note 3) IN GENERAL. - Taxes and public charges

(iv) the amount obtained by dividing the actual benefits by the number of months of service in the pertinent year;

5) On December 8, 2011, an order of seizure and collection was served on March 25, 201, after the issuance of the second seizure and collection was issued to the Defendant. However, although the seizure and collection were served on March 25, 2013, the effect of each of the seizure, unless it is expressly stipulated by limiting the time of occurrence of the claims that affect the effect of the seizure in each of the seizure in cases where multiple recommendations were issued for the continuous revenue claims, but the seizure and collection were conducted differently. Meanwhile, even if other seizures were issued after the seizures are excluded from the effect of seizure due to other reasons, the effect of each seizure extends to the whole of the claims that occurred before the seizures (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10748, May 30, 2003). The Plaintiff’s first, second, and collection orders of this case are effective from December 21, 2011 to December 21, 2011.

Note 6) The Plaintiff’s benefits are more than KRW 3 million per month but not more than KRW 6 million, and thus, the amount of seizure is 1/2 of monthly wages.

(6) No. 64,313,627 won = 64,313,627.