The preferential relationship between wage claims and tax claims as bankruptcy claims;

Although the Plaintiff asserted the right to preferential payment of wage claims against the bankrupt estate and claimed a return of unjust enrichment against the Republic of Korea, it would dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that there is no heat in repayment as estate claims.

2013dada 4562 Unlawful gains

1. The AA 2. GaB

Korea

August 14, 2013

August 28, 2013

1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant paid 20% interest per annum to the plaintiff OOO, the plaintiff ParkB with respect to each of the above amounts by the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. From April 2, 1990 to March 29, 2012, and from May 24, 2004 to March 28, 2012, Plaintiff LB entered and worked for eachCC Construction Co., Ltd., and Plaintiff LA was not paid wages and retirement allowances fromCC Construction. Plaintiff LA filed a lawsuit under this Court 201Gahap751, and the construction of “CC Construction” on August 30, 2012 was sentenced to the judgment that Plaintiff LA paid wages and retirement allowances to Plaintiff LA for the total amount of wages and retirement allowances and compensation for delay. Plaintiff LB filed a lawsuit under this Court 201Nu5322, and “CC Construction” on September 4, 2012 was sentenced to Plaintiff LA’s wages and retirement allowances and compensation for delay.

B. On November 1, 201, the Defendant, as a national tax creditor of theCC Construction, seized a deposit claim against the DDR Construction Co., Ltd. on a disposition on default. On November 20, 2012, the Defendant requested D Bank to pay the deposit claim and received KRW 16,750,619 on December 3, 201, in lieu of the construction ofCC, a national tax delinquent, and appropriated it for the amount in arrears.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on March 27, 2012,CC Construction was declared bankrupt by Daejeon District Court 2012Hahap8, and the bankruptcy procedure is in progress. The Plaintiffs requested the Daejeon District Court 2012TTTT 13694 and 13695 to issue a claim seizure and collection order against the above deposit claim ofCC Construction, and requested on October 12, 2012 to distribute the deposit ofCC Construction collected by the Defendant to the Plaintiffs who are priority creditors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 3, and 5 (including branch numbers, if any)

2. Related statutes;

It is as shown in the attached list.

3. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs' claims against theCC Construction (the plaintiff AOOO, the plaintiff Park BOOOB) have priority over the defendant's national tax claims under Article 38 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, and that the plaintiffs have the obligation to distribute the deposits of theCC construction collected from the DO bank to the defendant under Articles 80 through 81 of the National Tax Collection Act. However, the defendant asserts that since it was appropriated for the defendant's national tax claims, it should be returned as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination

According to Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, labor claims are priority claims. According to Articles 80 and 81 of the National Tax Collection Act, the head of a tax office has a duty to distribute money collected from a third debtor to a labor claim. However, according to the above basic facts,CC Construction, which is a debtor, is currently under bankruptcy proceedings on March 27, 2012, and thereafter, the defendant collected deposits fromCC Construction's D bank and appropriated such deposits to its own claims. Whether the above collection and appropriation are legitimate or not shall be governed by the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter "Act"). However, according to this Act, both claims constitute estate claims in proportion to the above estate claims, the plaintiffs and the defendant are entitled to occasional repayment from the bankruptcy foundation, and the above estate claims cannot be individually enforced against the assets ofCC Construction, which are the bankrupt foundation before the bankruptcy is declared. Since Article 349 of the Act is exceptionally established, the defendant's assertion that the above collection and repayment claims are not reasonable in light of the above bankruptcy claim's bankruptcy claims against the above.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.