Demurrer against distribution

It is difficult to see that the Plaintiff was a worker of the hotel of this case.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Suwon District Court 2013Gadan110175

7. The fact that he has revealed that he is engaged in the management of personal assets of BB, including a hotel;

Suwon District Court asserted that the Plaintiff is one of the duties as an employee of the hotel of this case.

In the case of Suwon District Court 2012 Ghana 14168 Rent, the Plaintiff is an individual of BB who is not the hotel of this case.

(8) The plaintiff also filed a civil petition with the O fire station in relation to the business of the hotel of this case.

Although the plaintiff asserts that there was an enemy, this is the air conditioners, etc. in the vicinity of the fourth floor of the building in this case.

A civil petition for an appropriate act is filed against the hotel's business and any other matter.

(9) It is difficult for BB individual, not the hotel of this case, to ascertain whether there is a relationship, and 9 March 7, 2011

(1) The Plaintiff delegated the overall business affairs concerning the lease of goods on the sixth or lower floor of the instant building, as well as the assets of the instant hotel, and (1) The Plaintiff had a longer date after the closing of argument in the instant case.

The service mark of the hotel name of this case was registered or the building 603 of this case was registered.

However, the registered service mark is alleged to have been engaged in the business of entering into a lease agreement.

(Registration No. 41-023767, Registration No. 41-023742, Registration No. 41-023751, Registration No. 41

-023750) All right holders appear to be BB individuals, not the hotel in this case, and the case

In the case of subparagraph 603 of the building, a lease contract between the hotel of this case and the O market of this case around January 28, 201

Although the Plaintiff entered into a contract on behalf of the hotel of this case, the Plaintiff entered into the said contract on behalf of the hotel of this case

The circumstances also do not peep, and the term of lease shall be set from January 29, 201 to 24 months during the relevant period.

It seems that there is a duty to provide the hotel in this case, which is the owner of 603.

In full view of the fact that the Plaintiff’s delegation to the owners of BB or the instant building.

There may be room to view that the entire building of this case has been engaged in various affairs related to the whole building of this case;

In addition, the Plaintiff was the employee of the hotel of this case.

It is difficult to see that it is, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so ordered as per Disposition.

judgment.

AA

2. On March 7, 2011, the status of BB as of March 7, 2011

According to the appointment of the president, the scope of delegation includes the business of the BB individual, and the above person on the 22th of the same month.

In addition to the hotel in this case, 'asset management, etc. of EE-owned assets' is also limited to the scope of delegation.

In addition, one of the duties delegated to the Plaintiff around March 23, 201 by the hotel of this case.

In the case of the Suwon District Court 2010 Ma4238 Building Name case, the hotel of this case is a party to the lawsuit.

No evidence exists, 3 The hotel of this case from October 9, 200 to 6 floors from the building of this case

R on March 13, 2005, the ownership of each store of 13th floor was acquired, but No. 701 of which was RR on March 13, 2005

on May 22, 2006, No. 801 sold to the SS, TT, UU, 901 to the YY, respectively;

Points of heading 601, 604, 605, 1001, 1101, 1201, 1301, 1302 and 1303

ownership transfer to a third party over the year 2010 after an auction has been conducted.

(4) As such, the hotel of this case is among the stores with six or more floors among the buildings of this case since 2011.

Only 602 & 603 shall be owned, and all third parties shall be entitled to ownership for the remaining stores.

The hotel of this case, even if it was no longer necessary to manage the hotel because it was transferred, is no longer necessary to manage the hotel.

30. Annual salary of 60 million won and indirect official business expenses by setting monthly salary at a higher level than that of the previous one between the plaintiff and the plaintiff;

A written employment contract in which monthly allowances are 2 million won, and 5 The plaintiff is the Suwon District Court.

Suwon District Court Decision 2010Kahap6968, Litigation for Refund of Deposit for Entrusted Operation, Litigation for Refund of Deposit for Rental Deposit 201Kahap746

In each of the above lawsuits, the defendant who was the defendant in each of the above lawsuits conducted a lawsuit on behalf of the hotel of this case

However, in the above lawsuit, the plaintiff received a decision to permit the hotel to act as an agent of the hotel in this case.

there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff performed the lawsuit as a person, and 6 November 22, 201

on two occasions on January 9, 2012, sending content-certified mail on the Dodwards of Dodwards, and on its own.

The hotel of this case, as well as the hotel of this case, shall carry out the business with the delegation of "BB, SS, 417"

The Plaintiff appears to have prepared around May 12, 201, and even if it appears that BB had been drafted around May 12, 201, this is also applicable.

Republic of Korea and 1

January 27, 2015

March 18, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on December 1, 2013 with respect to a compulsory auction case of real estate in Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, 2013taeng 7708, the amount of dividends to the defendant Republic of Korea shall be KRW 35,662,700, KRW 310,979, KRW 00, and KRW 310,979, KRW 35,973,679, respectively, for the defendant 00, and KRW 00 for the plaintiff AA, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff's employment relationship

1) BB drafted, on March 7, 2011 and March 22, 2011, a total of three occasions on three occasions, a power of attorney that delegates each of the following items to the Plaintiff.

“Persons delegated on March 7, 201: BB

2. Details of delegation;

1) Assets management and general affairs of CCC hotel (hereinafter referred to as “CCC hotel”)

(ii) general affairs, including the accounting of business entities related to the mandators;

(iii) overall management of the lease-related articles (other than No. 109 et al., 24 cases) of the hotel of this case with respect to the mandator.

(iv)all legal treatment of personal and private entities in connection with the mandators, including business assistance and agreement with the persons concerned at the time of auction and sale of real estate in connection with the mandators;

6) All business activities including management expenses and agreements with respect to the management office (DD21).

7) the terms of the business under a separate agreement and specifically directed by the mandator;

3. Persons delegated: AA.

4. Since the delegating person under paragraph (1) above delegated the overall matters to the delegated person under paragraph (3) in handling the delegated matters under paragraph (2), he/she confirms that there is no civil or criminal objection to the processing result. BB

2. Details of delegation;

(1) Assets management and general affairs of the hotel and EE-owned assets of this case

(2) All matters concerning the legal statement and conciliation of the Suwon District Court in relation to the Suwon District Court's Gyeyang-do case 2010Kahap4238 Building Names shall be registered.

4. The mandator under the above Paragraph 1 delegates to the administrator of the hotel in relation to the 8th floor and 13th floor as the actual operator of the hotel in this case with the overall authority in dealing with the delegation of Paragraph 2.

Persons delegated on March 22, 2011: BB

2. Details of delegation;

(1) Assets management and general affairs of the hotel of this case

(2) "All the matters concerning the legal statement and conciliation in connection with the case of the repayment of the deposit for entrusted operation under Article 6968 of the Suwon District Court and the Suwon District Court:

2) On March 23, 2011, FF prepared a power of attorney for the instant hotel’s representative director: (i) the management of the assets owned by the instant hotel and the overall business affairs; (ii) the name of the building in the Suwon District Court of Suwon District; and (iii) the name of the building in the Suwon District Court of Suwon District; and (iv) the name of the building in the Suwon District Court of Suwon District of 2010Kahap4238; and (v) the name of the Suwon District Court of Suwon District of 2010Kahap6968.

3) On May 12, 2011, BB drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of confirmation with the following content:

"Along on the estimated amount of payment of the plaintiff of Section 1

(1) Unpaid remuneration 27,500,000 to May 15, 2011

(2) Retirement allowances of 4,00,000 to 18 December 1, 2009 to 30 May 30, 2011

(3) Substitute loan 5,500,000 to May 1, 2011: (4) Other amount equivalent to 5,000,000,000,000

1. From December 1, 2009 to December 1, 2009, the Plaintiff is serving as a managing director of the hotel of this case, and is performing the overall business including the management of personal assets related to BB including the hotel of this case, and it is confirmed that he did not pay the unpaid amount as stated above (hereinafter omitted).

4) On September 30, 201, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with CCC hotel, and the main contents of the employment contract at the time are as follows.

The term of validity of a contract under Article 2 (Term of Contract) shall be from October 1, 201 to September 30, 2012, and shall be extended automatically, except as otherwise agreed.

Article 4 (Assignment and Remuneration) The position, remuneration, allowances, and terms of payment of the Plaintiff are as follows:

1. Position: A managing director;

2. Remuneration: Annual salary of 60 million won.

3. Allowances: 2 million won per month (including business promotion expenses, oil expenses, food expenses, transportation expenses, and communication expenses, etc.) FFF of the representative director of the hotel of this case on October 5, 201, prepared a power of delegation to the Plaintiff on October 5, 201, to delegate the Plaintiff with the preparation of a brief for the case of return of lease deposit deposit and the preparation and submission of reasons for filing an objection with respect to the decision of payment order for the case of return of lease deposit to the Suwon District Court, Suwon District Court, the Suwon District Court, the main text of the above paragraph, and ② the preparation of a document for the case of return of lease deposit and the overall statement in the court.

6) The instant hotel reported the closure of business around June 17, 201.

7) On December 15, 2010, FF and auditor BB of the hotel of this case: (a) around 00 local labor office head around December 15, 2010, the hotel’s representative director F and auditor BB consider that the employee’s wages as the representative director of the hotel of this case were in arrears with a considerable period of time; (b) the auction of the 13th floor of the hotel, which is the real estate of this case, was decided on November 2, 2010. The employees’ final auction decision on November 2, 2010. However, in order to secure the employees’ preferential repayment of overdue wages, the employees’ report on overdue wages in the Ministry of Labor is sufficiently known; (c) issued a power of attorney to investigate the employer’s wages in arrears, and (d) agreed to make a true statement about the overdue wages such as attachment. The attached documents prepared a letter of confirmation with the purport that the employer’s wages in arrears were submitted to the Plaintiff at the time of the investigation and submission of the power of attorney’s wages in arrears.

8) On November 22, 2011 and January 9, 2012, the Plaintiff sent the following content-certified mail to Diplomatic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Diplomatic Date”)

9) BBB은 이 사건 건물 222호, 224호, 225호를 각 임차하고 있는 PPP, QQQ 등을 상대로 수원지방법원 수원지방법원 안양지원 2012가소14168호, 같은 법원 2012가소14601호로 임대료 청구 소송을 각 제기하였는데, 당시 원고는 위 법원의 허가를 받아 BBB의 소송대리인으로서 각 소송절차를 대리하였고, 2012. 6. 27. BBB의 대리인으로 조정절차에 참여하여 PPP, QQQ과 사이에 임의조정이 성립되었다. 나. 원고의 이 사건 호텔 등에 대한 지급명령 원고는 이 사건 호텔 및 그 대표이사인 BBB을 채무자로 하여 수원지방법원 안양지원 2012차2339호로 지급명령신청을 하여 미지급 임금을 청구하였고, 위 법원은 2012. 5. 21. 이 사건 호텔과 BBB은 연대하여 원고에게 113,877,000원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급하라는 취지의 지급명령(이하 '이 사건 지급명령'이라 한다)을 내렸고, 그 즈음 이 사건 지급명령이 확정되었다.

(c) Distribution procedures;

1) As to the OO-15 No. 603, O-15, 603, which had been owned by the hotel of this case, the auction procedure was commenced at the court of Suwon method 2013ta-7708, the court of Suwon method. Accordingly, the plaintiff made a demand for distribution (hereinafter referred to as the "request for distribution of this case") against the wages of the last three months out of the overdue wages and the retirement allowances of the last three years.

2) On December 16, 2013, the court of auction prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes to the head of OO branch of OO, 310,979 won, in the order of 1,783,950 won, 2nd 350,000 won, 647,200 won, 35,62,700 won, and 4nd 35,62,700 won, and 310,979 won, to the head of OO branch of OO branch of OO (hereinafter referred to as “the instant distribution schedule”).

3) On December 16, 2013, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution and raised an objection against the entire amount of the Defendants’ dividends.

D. Details on changes in rights on the sixth or upper floor of the instant building

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Gap 8 to 11, Eul 4 evidence, and the purport of the whole testimony and pleading by witness BB

2. Determination

On the premise that the Plaintiff was an employee of the hotel in this case from December 1, 2009 to April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff asserts that the instant dividends should be paid 36,000,000 won in the aggregate of the wages of the last three months during the overdue wages and the retirement allowances of the last three years during the delayed payment of wages and the retirement allowances of the last three years under the premise that he was an employee of the hotel

(1) The hotel in this case entrusts hotel business to a third party even if it is based on the Plaintiff’s assertion