1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why this Court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts are as follows: “The Minister of Labor” as “the Minister of Employment and Labor”, “The 6 January 6, 2009” of the 17th trial as “the 6th day of January, 201,” and “C” of the 3th day of the first instance trial as “F”, and it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that wages and retirement allowances (hereinafter the instant substitute payment) are made to retired workers, etc. on behalf of the business owner A.

(2) In the auction procedure of this case, each of the instant real estate was provisionally seized before the commencement of the auction procedure of this case. Although the instant substitute payment claim had preferential payment right pursuant to the Labor Standards Act, the Plaintiff was excluded from the distribution due to the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain a demand for distribution or an opportunity to vindicate the preferential payment right by failing to obtain a demand for distribution or a notification of the date of distribution from the auction court, and the auction court distributed all the remainder to the Defendants except the amount distributed at the time Asan City in the first order from the proceeds of sale of each of the instant real estate. (2) In the auction procedure of this case, if the Plaintiff demanded distribution or obtained an opportunity to vindicate the preferential payment right, the Plaintiff was entitled to receive a full substitute payment payment payment, but the Plaintiff was not entitled to receive a dividend in the auction procedure of this case, and thus, the Defendant Bank was obligated to return each unjust enrichment of KRW 49,120,7

B. According to Articles 7, 8, and 27 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, in cases where the Plaintiff entrusted with the authority of the Minister of Employment and Labor and paid the unpaid wages, etc. on behalf of the said employer on behalf of the said employer, the said employee’s subrogation of the said employer’s claims, such as wages, etc. against the said employer