[2] Whether the property owned by an individual partner with unlimited liability of a limited partnership company is included in the "all property owned by an employer" (negative)

[2] Even if a limited partnership company is unable to fully pay its obligations with its assets, or a compulsory execution against its assets becomes effective, it cannot be interpreted that the limited partnership company's general partner is included in the "all property of an employer" which is the subject of preferential payment right, considering the nature of complementary liability, the influence on the protection of trust of the general security right holder and trade order, etc.

1. According to the provision of Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, "wages, retirement allowances, and accident compensation for the last three months of workers shall be paid in preference to claims secured by pledges or mortgages on the whole property of the employer, taxes, public charges, and other claims." This exceptionally limits the effect of general security rights on the part of the worker's property at the request of the public interest in order to guarantee the minimum living of the worker. In light of the legislative intent of this, the whole property of the employer subject to the right to preferential payment of wages refers to the whole property of the employer, who is the primary debtor of the obligation to pay wages as the party to the labor contract. Therefore, if the employer is a corporation, it is reasonable to see that the personal property of the person in charge of the management of the company, such as the representative of the corporation, is not included in the company's own property. Furthermore, even if the limited partnership is unable to fully pay the company's debts with the company's property or compulsory execution on the company's property, it can not be interpreted to include the case of the general partner's property.

2. In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that although the Defendants, who were retired workers of the construction company for filling up the non-party limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), did not obtain the satisfaction of the claim regarding the wage claim in the judgment of the non-party company's last three months's wage and retirement allowance against the non-party company's representative member and the non-party who is the general partner of the same company, held the above non-party liable for supplementary liability for the above wage obligation, the above non-party's real estate does not constitute the non-party's whole property subject to the right to preferential payment of wage under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the wage claim of the defendants' judgment cannot be superior to the plaintiff's claim secured by the right to preferential payment of wage under the above provision of the law, and there is no error of law

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)