Han Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Yoon Jin-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

September 30, 2005

Incheon District Court Decision 2004Gahap3105 Decided January 26, 2005

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on March 23, 2004 with respect to the auction case of real estate rent in Incheon District Court 2003 Tata 1030, the dividend amount of KRW 948,335,290 against the defendant shall be KRW 304,704,748, and KRW 3,165,504,807 against the plaintiff shall be corrected to KRW 3,809,135,349.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, since the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, 3, 18, 18, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5

Parts of Cutd

B. Determination

(4) If the Plaintiff’s priority rights on the wage, etc. provided for in the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “the above priority rights”) are the so-called statutory security rights secured by mortgages on the whole property of the employer, taxes, etc., and the mortgagee’s preferential rights on the real property owned by the employer are sold first, and the auction proceeds have become more unfavorable than those of the above several real property under Article 368(1) of the Civil Act, the above mortgagee may, by applying the latter part of Article 368(2) to the effect that if he/she concurrently receives dividends from the above several real property, receive dividends from the auction proceeds within the extent that he/she would have been able to obtain reimbursement from other real property, but the employer’s preferential rights on the security rights on the real property may not be deemed as secured by the employer’s indemnity rights and thus, the employer’s indemnity rights on the real property subject to reduction of wages cannot be said to have been established by applying the same Article to the extent that the obligee would have been entitled to receive reimbursement from the auction proceeds of other real property (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3275, etc.).

Furthermore, according to the evidence evidence No. 3, it is recognized that the defendant's light regional headquarters on November 6, 2002 attached the second real estate for the collection of industrial accident compensation insurance fees, etc. against the non-party company on the same day, and the non-party company was declared bankrupt on the same day, but according to the evidence No. 7, the defendant's auction case of the non-party 740 real estate on August 4, 2003 (the plaintiff: Korean Bank, the Korean Bank, the request date of the auction, the date of the commencement of the auction on July 14, 2003: the proceeds of sale on October 13, 2003: the non-party company's second sale on the same date; the non-party company's second sale on the same date after the defendant's second sale on the non-party company's second sale on the same date may not be found to have lawfully made a demand for the second-party company's substitute payment on the same date on the non-party company's second sale on the same date.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Judge)