Whether an employer may obtain an order of seizure and all of the employee's wage claims to execute the title of debt owed to the employee.

In light of the principle of full payment of wages under the main text of Article 36(1) of the Labor Standards Act, an employer may not set off his/her claim for wages, such as wages or retirement allowances, with other claims against employees. However, it does not mean that the employer does not prohibit the employer from receiving an attachment or assignment order with respect to an amount equivalent to 1/2 of his/her claim for wages, in order to execute the title of debt owed to the employee. Article 25 of the Labor Standards Act merely provides that an employer shall not set off his/her claim for wages with a sub-lease that the employer shall not set off his/her claim for wages, such as wages or retirement allowances, from among his/her claim for wages, and therefore, it cannot be said that the attachment

Articles 36(1) and 25 of the Labor Standards Act; Articles 561, 563, and 579 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da1137 Decided September 28, 1977 (Gong1977, 10313) Decided 74Da1840 Decided July 22, 1975 (Gong1977, 8623)

Re-appellant

Suwon District Court Order 93Ra263 dated October 21, 1993

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The main text of Article 36(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that "wages shall be paid in full in currency directly to an employee." In light of the principle of full payment of wages, the employer cannot offset against other claims against an employee, such as wages or retirement allowances, by using the claim for wages such as wages or retirement allowances, as a passive claim. However, the purport of the lawsuit is to prevent the employer from receiving the entire order of the employee for the purpose of executing the title of debt against the employee (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 74Da1840 delivered on July 22, 1975; Supreme Court Decision 77Da1137 delivered on September 28, 197).

In addition, Article 25 of the same Act merely provides that the employer shall not offset wages with the pre-paid or other sub-paid claims on the condition that the employer offers work. Accordingly, it cannot be concluded that the above-mentioned employer’s seizure and assignment order concerning wage claims is not allowed. The order of the court below to the same purport is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)