1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows: 3. Determination-A. Priority order is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. Priority in Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Act No. 13047, Jan. 20, 2015; hereinafter “Act”).

(1) Article 27 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act and Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide a substitute payment to a worker on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to Article 27 of the Act and Article 24(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, where the Plaintiff paid a substitute payment to the worker on behalf of the employer, he/she shall subrogate the relevant employer’s right to preferential payment recognized as the employee’s wage and other claims (Article 8(1) of the Act). The right to preferential payment recognized as the employee’s wage and other claims continues to exist as above (Article 8(2) of the Act). In cases of a substitute payment on behalf of the obligee, the obligee’s claim is legally transferred to the obligor without maintaining the obligee’s identity (Article 482(1) of the Civil Act). Article 8(2) of the Act confirms that this legal doctrine is applicable even in cases where the Plaintiff paid a substitute payment to a worker with the highest wage claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da21160, Jan. 27, 20111.

Therefore, in cases where the plaintiff pays some of the wages and retirement allowances which he/she has the right of priority repayment to a certain employee as a substitute payment, and exercises vicariously his/her right to wages, etc., the claims subrogated by the plaintiff shall be the wages, etc. of other workers who are not paid the substitute payment.