The effect of prohibition of seizure does not extend to the case where the amount of prohibited bonds cannot be classified formally and uniformly from the contract document.

If the amount of the claim prohibited from seizure can not be classified formally and uniformly by his/her own statement in the contract, it does not have the effect of prohibiting the seizure of all the claim for construction price.

Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry Prohibition of Seizure of Wages

2014 Doz. 18595 Undue profit

○○ Industrial Complex

Korea

August 12, 2015

September 9, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

Defendant Republic of Korea pays to the Plaintiff ○○○○○○, Defendant ○○○○ Insurance Corporation, ○○○○○○○○○ and each of them, 5% per annum from February 28, 2014 to the date of delivery of the application for correction of the purport of the instant claim, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On behalf of a △△ enterprise (hereinafter “△△ enterprise”), the Plaintiff paid 308 workers a sum of the unpaid wages for the last three months and the retirement allowances for three years, and may subrogate the employees’ right to claim unpaid wages, etc., which the said employees hold to △ enterprise within the said payment limit under the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits. Meanwhile, on November 13, 2013, the representative director and the employees’ representative requested a direct payment of wages to △ Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “△ Heavy Industries”).

B. On December 3, 2013, Defendant Republic of Korea seized and collected the price for the construction work for the construction work for the insurance industry in order for △△ enterprise to recover the wage and salary income tax in arrears (hereinafter “the price for the construction work in this case”). Defendant ○○○ Insurance Corporation also seized and collected the said price for the construction work in order to recover the national pension premium in arrears by △△ enterprise on November 6, 2013.

C. However, since the above term price is the construction work price under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the part equivalent to wages to be paid to workers is prohibited from seizure. Therefore, the term price of this case that the Defendants seized and collected against the prohibition of seizure should be returned to the Plaintiff who subrogated to the above workers.

2. Determination

A. As long as the scope of wage claims prohibited from seizure under Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act includes the amount of wages specified in the calculation sheet among the contract amount of construction works under the same Act and it clearly states that the ordering person of the construction works (including the contractor in cases of a subcontract) is limited to the amount specified in the contract or subcontract agreement, as long as the amount of wages calculated is limited to the amount specified in the contract amount or subcontract agreement, since the contract amount or subcontract amount does not distinguish the amount of wages and other construction expenses from the relevant contract amount claims subject to seizure at the time of issuing an order of seizure, it shall not affect the prohibition of seizure on the whole of the contract amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da10173, Jun. 24, 2005).

B. In full view of the purport of the argument in the fact-finding reply to the fact-finding regarding the instant case, the Corporation subcontracted by △△ Heavy Industries from △ Heavy Industries is not a simple labor work, but a offshore plant structure pipeline construction, and △ Heavy Industries paid progress payment after mutually ascertaining the substance of the period based on the amount of the contract with △△ Enterprise, and it is recognized that the separate calculation statement was not submitted at the time of the payment of the initial payment, and there is no circumstance to deem that the wage was specified in the contract statement, etc. between △ Heavy and △ Heavy Industries.

C. Thus, even if △△ enterprise leased materials and machinery from △ Heavy Industries Co., Ltd., and partially reduced costs, the instant flag price includes not only labor costs, but also various expenses such as management expenses and profits, so it cannot be deemed as constituting wages subject to prohibition of seizure under Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and Article 84 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

D. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the instant claim for the purchase price constitutes a claim prohibiting seizure is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.