logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울행정법원 2014.01.16 2013구합20387
도산등사실인정신청불인정처분취소
Text

1. On May 15, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-recognition of bankruptcy, etc. against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 13, 2010, the Plaintiff joined Company B (hereinafter “B”) that is engaged in the civil engineering design, measurement and management business, etc., and was in charge of accounting and management duties, and retired on September 1, 2012, and B closed down on October 25, 2012.

B. From April 2012 to August 2012, the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 7.5 million out of the wages from B and retirement allowances of KRW 11,388,063 (=7.5 million).

C. C, as in July 25, 2012, who worked as the head of division in B, established D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) that is engaged in civil engineering design, measurement and management business, etc. as in B, and the Plaintiff entered D on November 1, 2012 and engages in accounting and management business.

On January 17, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for recognition of bankruptcy, etc. under Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Decree”), etc. However, on May 15, 2013, the Defendant issued a non-recognition disposition as to the Plaintiff’s application on the ground that the Defendant: (a) confirmed that most workers were established in the same place and succeeded to employment; (b) based on the same asset and the same type of business was operated; and (c) confirmed that B was operated by utilizing the same business network; and (d) cannot be deemed as a de facto discontinuance and discontinuance of business.

(hereinafter “Disposition in this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1 of the parties is not the same company as that of the closed-down B, but is not a company that receives a comprehensive business transfer from B, such as the plaintiff's unpaid wages and retirement allowances.

Therefore, B constitutes a company in which the business under Article 5(1)2 of the Enforcement Decree is discontinued.

arrow