1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From January 1, 1998, the Plaintiff was employed by Nonparty C and worked for Nonparty C as an employee of D, and C established Nonparty E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) around January 2, 2013 due to a large sales size of D, and transferred the claim and debt relationship with the former D’s workplace, employee, machinery, apparatus, and customer to the Nonparty Company.

B. The Plaintiff worked for a non-party company operated by C until November 30, 2014, but did not receive the total of KRW 19,79,120 from June 2014 to November 2014.

C. Meanwhile, as a creditor against C, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction of 5,950 square meters of forest land owned by C (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and the Incheon District Court rendered a decision to commence compulsory auction on the instant real estate B. D.

In the above auction procedure, the Plaintiff demanded a preferential payment right as a wage creditor against C, but the Incheon District Court excluded the Plaintiff from the date of distribution implemented on February 23, 2016, and prepared a distribution schedule with the content that distributes KRW 65,212,468 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”), and the Plaintiff who appeared on the date of distribution raised an objection against the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the non-party company converted D, a private company operated by C, to a form of a legal entity. The previous human organization and material facilities were transferred as they are, and one company operated by C1. Thus, the real estate of this case, an individual property of C, is also the whole property of the employer entering the scope of the right to preferential payment of wages for the non-party company.

Therefore, the instant distribution schedule that excluded the Plaintiff from distribution is unlawful.

3. In light of the purpose of legislation of the right to preferential payment of wage claims, an employer who is subject to preferential payment of wage.