logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.03.24 2015누56696
배분처분취소
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

On May 2, 2012, the Defendant seized the instant deposit claim (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”). On October 12, 2012, the Seoul East C&C’s Seoul Eastern District Office, under the Ministry of Employment and Labor, filed an application for provisional attachment against the instant deposit claim, etc. to recover substitute payments to be paid to the employees of South C&C, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against the instant deposit claim on October 30, 2012 (Seoul East East East District Court Decision 2012Kadan9551), and paid KRW 975,526,820,727,71,706, among the top priority wage claims, etc. to the employees A et al. (hereinafter “instant workers”).

On December 7, 2012, the Defendant collected KRW 33,871,410 from the Industrial Bank of Korea due to the seizure of the instant deposit claim (hereinafter “instant collection amount”), and collected the instant collection amount in arrears on December 11, 2012.

On December 2, 2013, the instant workers filed a civil petition for grievance with the Defendant to the effect that “The Defendant collected the instant deposit claim of Hannam C&C and appropriated it for delinquent taxes, but the instant workers’ overdue wages are superior to national taxes, and the Defendant would return the total amount collected to the instant workers.” On December 20, 2013, the Defendant paid the full amount of the collected amount to the instant workers on December 20, 2013.

On February 17, 2014, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant to distribute the instant deposit claim to the Defendant on December 7, 2012, that “the Defendant has collected the instant deposit claim, and the Defendant has requested to distribute the instant deposit claim.” On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff received a reply from the Defendant on the demand for distribution of the claim collection amount, stating that “The instant collection amount was refunded to the instant workers on December 20, 2013.”

arrow