A claim which is the cause of the transfer of claims shall not be considered to have priority over the right of the transferee of the claim, regardless of whether it is after the notice.

Even if an employer’s claim is transferred in lieu of the repayment of the wage claim against the employer, so long as it is the transferor of the claim, the right of the assignee of the claim may not be considered to take precedence over the assignee’s right after the notification. If the obligee cannot be known without fault, the repayment deposit can be made in the event that the obligee cannot be ascertained without fault.

Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act preferential payment for wage claims

2015Na21883 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit Money

○○ Kim et al.

Korea

Busan District Court Decision 2015Gahap398 Decided May 21, 2015

March 3, 2016

March 31, 2016

1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

Between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, AAA was a vice branch of the Daegu District Court on September 1, 2014 2014.

Of 208,480,550 won deposited under gold 1470 (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit of this case").

148,909,503 won is confirmed that the right to claim the payment of deposit money is against the plaintiffs.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs seeking additional confirmation is revoked.

As between the Defendant and the Defendant, the right to claim payment of KRW 143,481,303 out of the instant deposit is against the Plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance confirms that only KRW 5,428,200 of the instant deposit is the plaintiffs.

Confirmation of the existence of a claim for withdrawal, the plaintiffs' claims partially accepted and the remainder of the claims.

The decision to dismiss the plaintiffs was rendered, and only the plaintiffs lost in the first instance court's decision.

Since an appeal has been filed, "148,909,503 won" in Paragraph 2 of the purport of appeal means "143,481,303 won".

(i) (i) 148,909,503 - 5,428,200 won appears to be a clerical error.)

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reason why the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the addition of the above "the result of inquiry about AA of the court of the first instance" in front of the "the purport of the entire argument of the third 3th of the judgment of the court of the first instance," and the "the conclusion of the fourth 16th '4.' above, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence

2. Additional determination

C. Determination as to the plaintiffs' assertion that the repayment deposit of the instant deposit is null and void

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

As long as the defendant's notification of attachment has been delivered prior to the arrival of the notification of the assignment of claims by the third debtor to AA prior to the arrival of the notification of the assignment of claims by the third debtor, it is obvious that the above notification of attachment has reached each other. In this case, the repayment deposit shall not be made on the ground of the creditor's uncertainty,

However, since AA made a payment deposit without a mixed deposit, the mixed deposit shall be made by the mixed deposit.

When the execution deposit procedure was implemented, the opportunity of the plaintiffs who could have been distributed to the wage creditor was lost.

Therefore, the deposit for repayment of the deposit of this case made by AA, a garnishee, is null and void, and the defendant's right to claim payment of the deposit of this case is nonexistent. Thus, the right to claim payment of the deposit of this case is preferentially against the plaintiffs.

2) Determination

First of all, the plaintiffs' above assertion together with the cause of claim, on the premise that the repayment deposit of the deposit of this case is null and void but the repayment deposit of this case is valid, they seek confirmation that the payment claim of 148,909,503 won, which constitutes the wages and retirement pay for the last three months from the deposit of this case, is against the plaintiffs. Thus, the above assertion by the plaintiffs itself is inconsistent with the cause of claim.

Then, according to the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, if the repayment deposit of the deposit of this case is null and void, the repayment deposit may be made in cases where the repayment obligor is unable to identify the obligee without negligence. Here, the "cases where the repayment obligor is unable to identify the obligee without negligence" refers to cases where the obligee or the repayment administrator exists objectively, but even if the obligor fulfills his/her care as a good manager, it is impossible to identify the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da55904, Dec. 22, 200). From the perspective of AA, the third obligor, the third obligor, it is only 1 hour and 30 minutes from the time of receipt of the Defendant's attachment notice, and it is difficult to identify the obligee, and therefore, the obligee cannot be seen as being. Accordingly, the repayment deposit of this case is valid. Also, the attachment by the disposition on default of arrears does not constitute a mixture of the Plaintiffs under Article 248 (1) 302, supra.382, Feb. 4, 2017.

Finally, if the plaintiffs are liable to the defendant on the ground that the deposit of this case was repaid, the deposit can be decided by the depositor as being under his responsibility and judgment and the depositor can choose the repayment deposit, the execution deposit or the mixed deposit. Thus, the third debtor, AA did not choose the method of execution deposit or the mixed deposit claimed by the plaintiffs (it does not meet the requirements of execution deposit or mixed deposit as mentioned above) and the defendant, who is merely the debtor, is not liable to whom the seizure authority of BB is the debtor.

Therefore, the above argument of the plaintiffs is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed due to the lack of reasons. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is justified with this conclusion, the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.