A. The Plaintiff retired from work on August 20, 2007 through August 31, 2008, and filed an application against the Defendant for the recognition of bankruptcy, etc. against the instant business owner, etc. in order to receive overdue wages, etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20140, Apr. 24, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20347, Apr. 24, 2009; Presidential Decree No. 20357, Apr. 24, 2009>

B. The business owner of this case started the business on May 5, 1997 and 21 and discontinued business activities on September 2008, and closed business on December 31, 2008.On the other hand, the "F" of the personal business chain engaged in the electronic components manufacturing business is G, the opening date of business is December 1, 2008, and the location of the business is Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H building.

D. On August 18, 2009, the Defendant rendered a disposition not to recognize bankruptcy, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”) on the ground that “The instant business owner transferred the Plaintiff’s application for recognition of bankruptcy, etc. to the lower floor of the H building in Geumcheon-gu Seoul (individual business entity F) and continues to operate the business.”

E. On November 9, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an administrative appeal with the Prime Minister Administrative Appeals Commission, but was dismissed on March 30, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2, Gap evidence 4-3, 4, Eul evidence 7 and 13, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant business owner(J) and F of an individual business owner are different from those of the instant business owner, and the individual business owner F is G, and thus, the individual business owner is a separate business owner. In addition, it cannot be determined whether the instant business owner took over the business of the instant business owner F of an individual business owner. Therefore, the instant business owner is deemed to be in the process of discontinuance or discontinuance of the business, and thus, the instant disposition that the Defendant was not aware of the fact of bankruptcy,

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Issues and determination

1) The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant business owner satisfies the requirements for discontinuance of business, etc. under Article 5 subparag. 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2269, Jul. 12, 2010); namely, whether the instant business owner discontinued his/her business or the instant business owner discontinued his/her main production or business activity for at least one month; on the premise of the foregoing, whether the instant business owner could be deemed to continue to operate his/her business after moving the location of the personal business F as the grounds for the Defendant’s disposition.

2) According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4-3, 4, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 13, the following facts may be acknowledged.

A) On December 31, 2008, the instant business owner closed his business, and the personal business F opened the location of G on December 1, 2008 as the Geumcheon-gu Seoul H building, and G opened its business under the name of the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H building, and G was the representative of the E (State).

The name of the name of the business owner is used, and the address of the website indicated in the name is the same as the address of the home closing paper of the business owner of this case.

B) On June 24, 2009 and July 23, 2009, the labor inspector affiliated with the defendant was on-site investigation of the F of the Personal Enterprise, and as a result, K was on-site investigation of the business owner's representative director of the instant business owner, and K was on-site investigation of the business owner, and there was no G, the business owner's representative director, and the office was on-site investigation of the instant business owner's accounting-related documents in 2007, 2008, the wage ledger in 2008, various contract-related documents, accounting books, and articles.

C) As a result of the above labor inspector’s interview with G on July 13, 2009, G was merely a part of the technical part of G, and at the present J did not leave the workplace, and G stated that it did not have any previous business or employment career.

D) At the above on-site investigation, J and K stated that they are preparing for bid transactions in China factory, and for this purpose, J stated that they are in charge of technical part, and K are in charge of business part.

3) According to the above facts of recognition, there is doubt that the J, on April 24, 2009, at the time of applying for recognition of bankruptcy, etc. with respect to the instant business establishment, registered the business operator F of a private business entity in the name of G, and conducted the same business activities as the instant business owner.

However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the legal personality of the instant business owner and the FF of a private company; and (b) there is insufficient evidence to prove that the said business owner has a comprehensive business transfer or acquisition with respect to assets or employment relationships, etc.; (c) it is difficult to readily conclude that G or J, on behalf of the instant business owner, has a duty to pay the overdue wages, etc. on behalf of the instant business owner; and (d) there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff filed an application for recognition of bankruptcy, etc. in collusion with J, etc., the aforementioned suspected circumstance alone cannot be deemed as proven that the Plaintiff continued to conduct the business despite

Therefore, even if the instant disposition satisfies the requirements for discontinuance of business under Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22269, Jul. 12, 2010), the recognition of bankruptcy, etc. is denied, and thus, it shall be revoked in an unlawful manner.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

Judges

Judges Kim Gin-ia

A person shall be appointed.