A. B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) was established on September 1, 2015, and was engaged in business such as construction and installation of industrial plants, and was disposed of ex officio on January 15, 2018 due to tax in arrears.

B. On October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for non-approval of bankruptcy, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant disposition”) with the Defendant on July 16, 2018, on the ground that he/she, as an employee retired from office on the ground that he/she had been paid wages and total amount of KRW 24,095,295. The Defendant filed an application for non-approval of bankruptcy, etc. of a company outside the lawsuit. The Defendant: (a) on October 15, 2018; (b) on the part of the Plaintiff; (c) on the part of the Plaintiff; and (d) on the part of the Plaintiff, the actual business owner of the non-party company, the non-party company, after completing a new business registration under the name of the land owner after the closure of his/her authority; and (d) on the ground that the non-party company failed to meet the requirements under Article 5(

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party company closed its business on January 15, 2018 and discontinued its business activities from that time. D is a corporation entirely different from the non-party company and its workplace registration number, representative, etc.

Therefore, even though the non-party company satisfies all the requirements for recognizing bankruptcy, etc. under Article 5 (1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, such as the closure of business, the disposition of this case is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

C. Determination

1) According to Article 7(1)3 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, where the Minister of Employment and Labor deems that an employer has no ability to pay unpaid wages, etc. in accordance with the requirements and procedures prescribed by Presidential Decree, he/she shall pay the unpaid wages, etc. on behalf of the employer. Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, which provides for the requirements and procedures for the recognition of bankruptcy, etc. upon delegation by the said employer, provides that one of the requirements to be met by the pertinent employer under subparagraph 2, is the case where the business is discontinued or the business is discontinued, that is, where the main business facility is seized or provisionally seized or transferred for repayment of debts, or where the authorization, permission, registration, etc. of the said business is revoked (b) or where the main production or business activity of the said business is suspended for more than one month (c). In addition, according to Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, the Plaintiff’s employer is, in principle, the non-party company.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, the non-party company closed its business ex officio on January 15, 2018, and was suspended from its main production or business activity for more than one month, and it cannot be deemed that the non-party company succeeded to the obligation to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wages, etc. by taking over the existing business from the non-party company. Thus, the non-party company satisfied the requirements of Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, “the business was discontinued or is in the process of discontinuance of the business, or is in the process of discontinuance of the business.” On any other premise, the instant disposition taken under the different premise is unlawful.

① The location of the place of business of the non-party company is E, F, and the representative director of the non-party company is G, and the location of the place of business of the non-party company D is different from the location of the non-party company H at the time of harmony

② On July 16, 2018, C was investigated by the Gyeonggi-do Office for Labor and Labor of the Middle-gu Branch of the Korea Job Agency and stated as follows. D did not succeed to the labor relationship of the pre-existing employees of the non-party company, and was not transferred the production facilities of the non-party company. The non-party company did not have current cash assets or bonds, and all the facilities owned at the time were disposed of by the non-party company. D operates the same business (industrial plant manufacturing, installation, etc.) as the non-party company. However, due to the characteristics of the type of business, D operates the same business as the non-party company.

③ The Plaintiff filed a petition against C on the grounds that wages and retirement allowances were unpaid. C was issued a summary order of KRW 4 million on August 29, 2018 by the Suwon District Court on the grounds of criminal facts committed against the Plaintiff, etc. of violating the Labor Standards Act, and the said order became final and conclusive.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted.

For the establishment of judges:

Judges Kang Jin-jin

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.