2011Guhap20857 Such revocation as a retirement allowance in substitute payment.

A

The Head of Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency

September 6, 2011

September 23, 2011

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On June 13, 2011, the Defendant’s decision on the site payment of retirement benefits among substitute payments made to the Plaintiff shall be revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. From February 10, 2004, the Plaintiff served as a secretary-general in an incorporated association B (hereinafter “instant company”) from February 10, 2004, and retired from office on July 1, 201 and retired again on July 31, 201.

B. From February 10, 2004 to December 31, 2009, the Plaintiff was not paid the retirement allowance of KRW 17,311,190 during the period of service, and KRW 10,354,838 during the period of service from July 1, 201 to January 31, 201. The instant company filed a petition for bankruptcy with the Seoul Central District Court on January 5, 201, and the said court declared bankruptcy against the instant company on February 14, 201, the Plaintiff submitted a written confirmation and a written claim for substitute payment to the Defendant on March 8, 201. The Defendant recognized the instant substitute payment only to the Plaintiff on June 13, 201 to the effect that the instant company was subject to a disposition of KRW 10,354,838 during the period of service (hereinafter “the instant substitute payment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the scope of a substitute payment is unpaid among the retirement allowances for the last three years, the plaintiff is required to receive a substitute payment for the retirement allowances not paid by the company of this case during the first period of the labor (from February 10, 2004 to December 31, 2009).

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Determination

Article 7(1) of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act provides that where an employer is declared bankrupt, the Minister of Employment and Labor shall pay unpaid wages, etc. on behalf of the employer, and Article 7(2) of the same Act provides that the amount of retirement allowances for the last three years under Article 11(2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act shall be included in the scope of substitute payment. In addition, Article 7 Subparag. 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act provides that a retired employee shall be eligible for substitute payment within three years from the date on which he/she becomes one year before the date of application for bankruptcy. Therefore, the first disposition against the company’s bankruptcy (as of January 5, 201), which is one year before January 5, 2010 to January 4, 2013, the period of service of the employee who retired from the company does not fall under the premise that the employee would be entitled to substitute payment.

3. Conclusion

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

Number of judges of the presiding judge;

Judges Jeong Jae-hee

Judges Yang Jae-chul

A person shall be appointed.