[양수금][공1995.1.15.(984),444]
Whether a person who has taken over a claim against a third party obligor, which has already been seized by other creditors in order to be paid the wage claims, may seek a direct payment prior to the third party obligor by excluding the effect of the seizure disposition from the ground of the preferential payment right.
In a case where the worker entrusted the right of collection of overdue wages to the plaintiff, the chairman of the labor union, when the company transferred the claims for the price of the goods to the plaintiff, and the claims for the price of the goods were seized as national taxes against the company prior to the notification of the transfer, the obligor cannot pay the claims to the creditor in the event that the claims were attached due to default of national taxes. Thus, the obligor cannot set up against the country where the seizure was made after the seizure of the claims, even if the obligor pays the claims to the creditor, it cannot be set up against the country where the seizure was made. On the other hand, the right of preferential payment of wage claims, as the so-called statutory security right, can not be seen as having any effect above that the obligor can obtain preferential satisfaction by the general execution procedure. Thus, in a case where the obligor's property was enforced, it cannot be viewed as having the right of preferential payment from the realization by the compulsory execution procedure, and it cannot be viewed as having any authority to seek a direct payment more than the effect of the seizure disposition already made by other creditors. Furthermore, even if the plaintiff did not receive the claims from the creditor through compulsory execution procedure.
Article 30-2 of the Labor Standards Act
[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han-sung, Attorneys Park Young-chul and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant) and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee
[Judgment of the court below]
Samung Construction Industry Co., Ltd. and six others
Seoul High Court Decision 92Na63889 delivered on November 17, 1993
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts based on the following facts: (a) the employees of the new non-party corporation 1, who was in the bankruptcy crisis due to aggravation of management status, delegated the right to collect and receive wages in arrears to the plaintiff, who was the chairman of the labor union; (b) the plaintiff and the above non-party company agreed to transfer the claims for the price of goods held by the non-party company against the defendants to the plaintiff on January 4, 1992; and (c) the above non-party company notified each of the above claims against the defendants on January 14, 1992; (d) the director of the labor office and the director of the labor office notified the defendants of the purport of the above seizure on or before the date of arrival of the above non-party company's right to preferential payment or before it reaches the defendants, and (e) determined that the above claims for the payment of wages in the procedure of the above non-party company's claim for the payment of wages in accordance with Article 30-2 of the Labor Standards Act, as well as retirement allowance claims.
2. However, in case where a claim is seized as a national tax in arrears, the obligor cannot pay the creditor the debt, so even if the obligor pays the debt to the obligee after the seizure was made, it cannot be set up against the country where the seizure was made. On the other hand, the right to preferential payment of wage claims can not be viewed as effective beyond the extent that the obligor can obtain preferential satisfaction by the general execution procedure of security right as a so-called statutory security right, which is so-called "right to preferential payment". Thus, in a case where the obligor executes compulsory execution on the debtor's property, it is only possible to receive preferential payment from the realization proceeds by compulsory execution, and it cannot be viewed as the right to seek direct payment by excluding the validity of the seizure disposition already made by other creditors without going through the procedure and form (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 8Da15734, May 23, 1989). Moreover, even if the Plaintiff's right to preferential payment was transferred within the scope of collection from the above company, it cannot be viewed as a right to demand direct payment by the plaintiff's claim through the seizure procedure.
Therefore, the court below's decision that the plaintiff has the authority to seek a direct payment of the amount of national tax, regardless of the prior notice of national tax attachment or whether it satisfies the requisite for setting up against the plaintiff, is clear that it committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of the disposition of national tax attachment and preferential repayment
3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)