채권양도의 원인이 된 채권이 임금채권이라고 하여 그 통지의 선후에 상관 없이 채권양수인의 권리가 우선한다고 할 수는 없음.[국승]
A claim that is the cause of the transfer of claims is a wage claim, and the right of the assignee of the claim cannot be considered to take precedence over another claim without any superior officer after the notification.
Even though the employer was transferred the employer’s claim in lieu of paying the wage claim to the employer, the employer’s right to the transferee of the claim cannot be deemed to take precedence over the transferee’s right to the claim, on the ground that the claim that caused the assignment of claim is a wage claim and the preferential right to the payment under the Labor Standards Act is recognized.
Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act (Preferential Payment)
2015 Gohap 398 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit
Kim AA et al.
Korea
April 30, 2015
May 21, 2015
1. Between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, it is confirmed that the right to claim the payment of deposit amount of KRW 5,428,200, out of KRW 208,480,550 deposited by the KOO in 2014 by the KOO in 2014.
2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.
3. 9/10 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder is assessed against the defendant.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On July 8, 2014, the Plaintiffs, as the wage creditors of AA (hereinafter referred to as “AA”), acquired the credit account receivables 208,780,550 won (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) held by AB from AA to BB (hereinafter referred to as “careB”), and AB notified AB of the said assignment of claims on the same day, and the said notification reached the CB on July 9, 2014.
B. On July 8, 2014, the Defendant seized part of the instant claims up to the amount of national taxes in arrears, on the ground that AA’s failure to pay national taxes (a total of 203,052,350 won), and notified the Kenya thereof, and the notice reached 10:35 Kenya on July 9, 2014. The Kenya deposited the deposited amount under the FOOOOOO in this Court in 2014, on the ground that the priority order cannot be determined due to competition of assignment of claims, seizure, etc. of the instant claims, etc. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 25083, Sep. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20850, Feb. 8, 2014>
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiffs' assertion
Although the notification of the plaintiffs' assignment of claims and the notification of the defendant's seizure regarding the instant claim were reached on the same day, the plaintiffs' claims against AA were priority over the defendant's national tax claims as wages and retirement allowance claims, so the plaintiffs' claims against AA are 148,909,503 won out of the instant deposit, which constitute the wages for the last three months and retirement allowances for the last three years.
3. Determination
A. Relevant legal principles
In a case where a claim is transferred doublely, the obligor’s perception of the assignment of claim, i.e., the notification of the transfer with a fixed date, which reaches the obligor’s date and time and after the consent with a fixed date, shall be determined not by the notification or consent, but by the prior notification of the transfer of claim. This legal doctrine also applies in a case where a person who executes an order of provisional seizure with respect to the same claim as the assignee determines a heat between the executor of an order of provisional seizure. Thus, the right to preferential payment under Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act shall be determined by the prior notification of the assignment of claim with a fixed date and the prior notification of provisional seizure to the garnishee (debtor in the case of the assignment of claim) after the arrival of the original copy of the order of provisional seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994). In addition, the right to preferential payment under Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act is deemed to have been paid in preference to the obligor’s right to the transfer of claim.
B. Determination
The Defendant’s notification of attachment reached 10:35 on July 9, 2014, and the Plaintiffs’ notification of the assignment of claims reached 12:08 on July 9, 2014, which is subsequent to the notification of the Plaintiffs’ notification of the assignment of claims, are as seen earlier. As long as the Defendant’s notification of attachment was delivered before the notification of the assignment of claims to Kenya, seizure by the Defendant’s disposition on default takes precedence over the Plaintiffs’ assignment of claims. The Defendant’s amount of seized claims exceeds KRW 203,052,350, as seen earlier. As such, the amount of seized claims by the Defendant’s disposition on default exceeds KRW 203,48,480,550, the amount of seized claims by the Defendant exceeds the amount of claims by the Plaintiffs’ claims by 203,052,350,000 won would be reduced to KRW 5,428,200,000 among the instant claims assignment.
4. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking confirmation of the right to claim the payment of deposit money is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.