2. Korea;

3.B

4. National Health Insurance Corporation 00 branch offices;

5. MaximumCC;

6. ○○-si.

2. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant Lee A, the Republic of Korea, and LeeB are all dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant AA, Korea, and LeeB, including the part arising from the participation in the lawsuit. The part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation ○○, the largestCC, and the ○○ City shall be borne by the said Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on May 27, 2015, the amount of dividends to the plaintiff shall be KRW 75,576,903 with respect to a compulsory auction against the plaintiff at ○○ District Court ○○○○○ Branch 2014,000,000 won, KRW 35,000,000 won with respect to the amount of dividends to the defendant Lee Dong-A, KRW 29,08,494 with respect to a compulsory auction against the defendant Lee Dong-A, KRW 1,364,00 won with respect to the amount of dividends to the defendant Lee Dong-B, KRW 35,00,000 with regard to the amount of dividends to the defendant Lee Dong-B, KRW 239,599 with respect to the amount of dividends to ○○ branch of the defendant National Health Insurance Corporation ○○○ branch ○○, KRW 273,7730 won with respect to the amount of dividends to the defendant, KRW 5383,78489,09 each.

A. On April 14, 2014, 201 ○ District Court ○○○○○ Branch 2000, rendered a decision to commence a compulsory auction of real estate enforcement on each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction”).

B. WhiteD and EE filed a lawsuit against ○○ Construction on May 28, 2014 with FF District Court 2014da0000. On August 28, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment that “○○ Construction shall pay to Plaintiff 0D 54,03,150 won, and to Plaintiff E 37,124,200 won, and to Plaintiff 0D 20% interest per annum from July 15, 2013 to Plaintiff 15, and from April 15, 2013 to the date of full payment, the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 3, 2014.”

C. On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 51,214,590 to White, and KRW 34,915,120, respectively. On May 19, 2015, the Plaintiff received a claim based on the final judgment in the FF District Court 2014Kadan0000 for ○○ Construction from White and EE, and the Plaintiff consented thereto on the same day. On May 22, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a claim statement regarding the principal of wages and the damages for delay at the above auction procedure. On May 28, 2015, the execution clause was granted as a successor to White and EE.

D. On February 24, 2010, Defendant AA completed a move-in report on real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 and received the fixed date, and the lease deposit is KRW 35,00,000. Defendant BB completed a move-in report on real estate listed in paragraph (3) of the attached Table No. 3 and received the fixed date, and the lease deposit is KRW 35,00,000.

E. In the above auction procedure, the court prepared a distribution schedule of KRW 133,753,891, which is the lessee, with the first priority of KRW 35,00,00,000, which is the lessee, and KRW 1,364,030,000 in the first priority of the Defendant Republic of Korea to the Defendant who is the delivery authority, and KRW 35,00,000 in the first priority to Defendant BB, the lessee, and KRW 8,239,59 in the second priority to Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation ○○○○ (hereinafter “Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation”) who is the delivery authority, and KRW 273,73 in the third priority to DefendantCC, the creditor of the request for auction, and KRW 53,876,489 in the third priority to Defendant ○○ who is the delivery authority. The Plaintiff was excluded from the distribution of dividends. The Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendants’ distribution date, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendants’ distribution date.

F. Meanwhile, the Defendant B’s assistant intervenor is a person who purchased the real estate specified in Paragraph 3 of the attached Table in the above auction procedure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 to 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

As the Plaintiff subrogated to the amount of the wage obligation of 000 ○ Construction on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff, the amount of the subrogated payment should be distributed to Defendant AA and BB in the same order with the small amount of the deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act of this case, and the remainder of the wages and retirement allowances of 05,576,903 won (=4,204,636 won related to the 00 E’s claim + 31,372,266 won), Defendant A and BB should be distributed in the order of priority within the scope of the final three months of wages and retirement allowances of this E. Accordingly, the amount of the dividends to the Plaintiff on the remainder of the Defendants except the above 00 won should be corrected as stated in the distribution schedule and the purport of the claim.

3. Determination

A. Even when a worker transfers his/her wage claim, the principle of direct payment of wages under Article 36(1) of the Labor Standards Act shall not apply to the payment of wages, and an employer shall not pay wages directly to the worker. As a result, even if the lawful validity exists, the transferee may not demand the payment of wages to the employer himself/herself, and such legal principle shall also apply to cases where the person who received the wage claim from the worker or delegated the collection thereof requests the employer to distribute the employer’s property (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da2630, Mar. 22, 1996).

Meanwhile, in the case of a subrogation on the part of a person who reimburses another person's obligation and subrogated to a creditor, the obligee's claim is, as a matter of course, transferred to the obligor under the law without maintaining the identity of the obligee's claim. This legal doctrine also applies to the obligee's wage claim under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, a person who has repaid a wage claim with preferential right to payment right under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, as a wage obligee against the employer who is the obligor, may demand a distribution by the successful bid date and receive a preferential repayment over the secured claim or general claim in the relevant distribution procedure. As such, even if the right to preferential payment of wages is acknowledged to a person who is not an employee, it cannot

In addition, in the case of voluntary subrogation, notification or consent of subrogation by the certificate with a fixed date is required in order to oppose the third party, but in this case, the third party means only the person who is in a legal position that is not compatible with the subrogation with the claim itself, which is the purpose of the subrogation (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da21160 delivered on February 23, 196).

B. In light of the above legal principles, the following facts are acknowledged in light of the facts acknowledged as above and the fact-finding on ○○ Construction by this court. Considering the status of 0D and EE, relationship between the parties, the time and amount of the Plaintiff paid 0D and EE, the Plaintiff appears to have paid 000 won to E, 34,915,120 won as wages and retirement allowance claims, and the evidence submitted by the Defendants and Defendant BB Intervenor is not different even if it were to be considered that 0D and EE transferred claims based on the above final judgment as to 00D and EE, and that the Plaintiff was subrogated to 0D and EE, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having given the Plaintiff’s consent to the subrogation of 0D and EE, which are the purpose of this Act by subrogation, as long as the Plaintiff did not have given consent to the transfer of claims based on the above final judgment as above to 00D and EE, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as having given the Plaintiff’s consent to the transfer of claims under this Act.

Meanwhile, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts to the effect that, as the Plaintiff did not vindicate that the Plaintiff meets the requirements for subrogation by the completion date for demanding a distribution in the above auction procedure, it may not file a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution. As seen earlier, Defendant Republic of Korea, as the Plaintiff did not make a lawful demand for distribution in the above auction procedure, may participate in the distribution by subrogationing the wage creditors by proving that the Plaintiff, who is the subrogated, has the right to subrogate the relevant wage creditors until the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive, even if the Plaintiff did not make a separate demand for distribution. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff has the right to subrogate the relevant wage creditors until the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive, and was granted the inheritance execution clause. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to participate in the distribution procedure through a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, and the Defendant’s assertion on a different premise is without merit.

C. According to Article 38(2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 12(2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, wages for the last three months and retirement allowances for the last three years shall be paid in preference to claims secured by pledges and mortgages on the whole property of the employer, taxes, public charges and other claims. According to the foregoing evidence, in the case of WhiteD, the wages for the last three months shall be KRW 10,390,50 for the last three months, retirement allowances for the last three years shall be KRW 10,390,50 for the last three years, and in the case of E, the wages for the last three months shall be KRW 10,390,50 for the last three months, and retirement allowances for the last three years for the last three years shall be recognized.

The amount of retirement allowance claim of the Plaintiff for the final three months’ wages and the final three years’ retirement allowance for the Plaintiff’s subrogation shall be distributed to Defendant A, thisB, Article 8 of the former Housing Lease Protection Act, and Article 10 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26922, Jan. 22, 2016) at KRW 15,000, respectively, as well as the claim of KRW 15,000. Therefore, the amount of KRW 20,781,00 for the Plaintiff (i.e., wages of KRW 10,390,50 for the last three months + KRW 10,390,50 for the last three years + KRW 10,64,070 for the retirement allowance of KRW 17,390,50 for the last three months + KRW 308,500 for the final three months’ wages, KRW 308,500 for the dividends of KRW 3081,5307,507

Since then, if the amount of credit 1,364,030 won is distributed as the holder of the right to deliver to the Defendant Republic of Korea, and the Defendant A and B distribute each remaining lease deposit 20,000,000 won to the Defendant A and BB, the amount to be distributed (=65,308,821 won - 1,364,030 won - 20,000 won - 20,000 won).

On the other hand, labor-related claims except for wages for the last three months and retirement allowances for the last three years shall take precedence over claims secured by mortgages, etc., but they shall not take precedence over taxes, etc. taking precedence over security rights (Article 38(1) of the Labor Standards Act).

The principal of the Plaintiff’s claims, such as the Plaintiff’s remaining wages, except for the amount of wages for the last three months and the retirement allowances for the last three years, is KRW 30,43,590 (=51,214,590 won -20,781,000 won subrogated by the Plaintiff) and KRW 17,251,050 on EE (=34,915,120 won subrogated by the Plaintiff - KRW 17,664,670). The amount of the remaining dividends as seen earlier should be fully distributed to the Plaintiff’s claim for the remaining wages, such as the Plaintiff’s remainder of the wages. Ultimately, there is no dividend in the Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation, the MinimumCC, and ○○.

D. Ultimately, the amount to be distributed in the above auction case should be distributed to the Plaintiff at KRW 62,389,861 (i.e., wages for the last three months and retirement allowance of KRW 38,445,070 for the last three years + Claim 23,94,791 for the remainder of wages and other claims, etc.) and KRW 35,000,000 for each of the above 35,000 won (= + KRW 15,000,000 + KRW 20,000), and KRW 1,364,030 for the Republic of Korea. Accordingly, it is reasonable to delete the dividend amount for the Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation from the dividend amount of KRW 8,239,59, and KRW 273,773,576,489 for the Defendant LCC and KRW 53,876,89 for the Plaintiff at the time of Defendant ○○, and to rectify the dividend amount as KRW 62389,816.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim against Defendant National Health Insurance Corporation ○, the largestCC, and ○○ City is justified, and all parts of the defendant Lee A, the Republic of Korea, and LeeB are dismissed as it is without merit.