Demurrer against distribution

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit because there is no obvious evidence to acknowledge it as wage claim.

1. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The defendant pays to the plaintiff Kim ○, 4,700,000 won to the plaintiff Lee ○, 2,750,000 won to the plaintiff Lee ○, 2,450,000 won to the plaintiff Lee ○, 3,100,000 won to the plaintiff Lee ○, 4,200,000 won to the plaintiff Park ○, 4,500,000 won to the plaintiff Kim ○, 3,800,000 won to the plaintiff Kim ○, 4,000,000 won to the plaintiff Kim ○, and 3,50,000 won to the plaintiff Kim ○, and 3,50,000 won to the plaintiff Kim ○○.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2000, the old ○○ had manufactured steel structure, etc. with the trade name, “○○ Industry” from October 1, 200 to October 31, 2003.

B. However, on April 14, 2005, on the application of ○○○○-dong 00 land and its ground buildings owned by ○○-dong 00, 000, which are the right to collateral security (right to collateral security), the auction procedure of real estate was initiated by this court 2005 ○0000.

C. On July 20, 2005, the plaintiffs selected the plaintiff Kim ○ as a party to demand a distribution, and they were employed by the plaintiff Kim ○○ and worked for the plaintiff Kim ○○ industry. From the former ○○○, the plaintiff Kim ○ was 4.7 million won, the plaintiff Lee ○○, the plaintiff Lee 2.5 million won, the plaintiff Lee ○, the plaintiff Lee ○ 3.1 million won, the plaintiff Park ○ 4.2 million won, the plaintiff Lee ○ ○, the plaintiff Lee ○, the plaintiff Lee ○, the plaintiff Lee ○, the 3.8 million won, the plaintiff Lee ○, the 4.5 million won, the plaintiff Kim ○, the 4.5 million won, the plaintiff Kim ○, and the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, the plaintiff Kim ○, and the plaintiff 3.5 million won in total, applied for a dividend payment to the executing court.

D. However, on March 23, 2006, the court of execution prepared and presented a distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule of this case") stating that the amount of KRW 2,721,770 out of KRW 110,160,086, which is the date of distribution, is to be actually distributed, to the head of ○○○○○, which is the first priority, and KRW 72,000,000 to ○○ Bank, which is the second priority, and KRW 35,438,316 to ○ Bank, which is the second priority, to ○○○, the Defendant was excluded from the distribution of dividends.

E. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution and raised an objection against KRW 33 million out of the Defendant’s dividend amount, and thereafter filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the court 2006○00000 on March 29, 2006, but the said lawsuit was withdrawn due to the absence on the first date of pleading.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, 3, Evidence No. 6-1, 2, Evidence No. 1, 5, 6, and 8-11, 5, and 6-3 of Evidence No. 1 to 3-1, 5, and 8, testimony by a witness Kim ○, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the above wage claims of July 2003 and August 2003, which are the workers employed by the old ○○○○○ and worked in the ○○ Industry, are unfair, despite priority over the defendant's tax claims, the instant dividend table excluding the plaintiffs' dividends is unfair. The defendants asserted that they have the duty to return each of the above wages to the plaintiffs since they benefit from each of the above wages to be distributed to the plaintiffs without any legal grounds.

B. We examine whether the plaintiffs were employed by the old ○○○○○○○ Industries and did not receive each of the above wages. As such, evidence of evidence Nos. 2, 4-1 through 5-7, 7-1, 2, and 3-2 through 10, and 10-12, and witness Kim○○○’s testimony, each of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 15-3 through 5, and the whole purport of the arguments are as follows. In other words, it is difficult for the plaintiffs to submit to the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Industries for the above wages, and it is difficult for the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ to provide the above wages, and it is difficult for the plaintiffs to prove that the plaintiffs’ respective of the above evidence and evidence No. 15-2 were in conflict with the above ○○○○○○○○○○○○.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.