1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Although the Plaintiff has secured the effective title of the decision on performance recommendation with respect to the same subject matter as the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff filed a second suit to use the small amount substitute payment system under the amended Wage Claim Guarantee Act, which was enforced on July 1, 2015, and ex officio, examined the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

Where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party institutes a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in favor of a final and conclusive judgment, the subsequent suit, in principle, is inappropriate as there is no benefit in the protection of rights, and exceptionally, where it is obvious that the ten-year lapse period of extinctive prescription of a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment has expired, there is benefit in the lawsuit

Such a legal doctrine is reasonable to view that the same legal doctrine applies to a final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation with the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, except res judicata.

We examine whether there are special circumstances to bring the same lawsuit again even though the decision on performance recommendation was finally binding on the Plaintiff.

Although Article 7(1)4 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, which was enforced on July 1, 2015, was newly established, the subject of substitute payment is extended by the Minister of Employment and Labor to pay wages in arrears, etc. on behalf of a business owner at the request of workers, even if the final judgment, payment order, settlement in the lawsuit, the settlement in the lawsuit, the recognition and acceptance of the claim, the mediation, and the decision of performance recommendation, etc. are the social security measures introduced at a mutually advantageous level for the protection of workers, and such substitute payment system cannot be deemed as the form of the original compulsory execution intended in the Korean civil law system.

Therefore, if a final judgment, etc. subject to Article 7 (1) 4 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act is newly acquired, a substitute payment system can be used.