The Korea Labor Welfare Corporation shall vindicate that it has the right to subrogate the wage creditor.

The Korea Labor Welfare Corporation may act on behalf of the wage creditors by explaining that there is a right to subrogate the wage creditors before the dividend schedule becomes final and conclusive.

[Definition of Unjust Enrichment] Article 741 of the Civil Act

2013 Ghana 136490 Undue gains

△△△ (Seoul)

Korea

January 28, 2014

February 11, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 0,00 won with 20% interest per annum from the day after the delivery of a copy of complaint to the day of complete payment.

Even in the compulsory execution procedure against a claim, as in the case of an auction procedure against a real estate, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service subrogated a wage creditor may receive a distribution only in the case where a lawful distribution has been made not later than the completion date of the demand for distribution under Article 247 of the Civil Execution Act. Provided, That if an employee, who is a wage creditor, voluntarily made a lawful demand for distribution based on a preferential right to payment prior to the completion date of the demand for distribution, the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation shall, even if it was unable to make a demand for distribution prior to the completion date of the demand for distribution, be able to participate in the distribution by subrogation of a wage creditor by proving that he/she has the right to subrogate such wage creditor before the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da31282, Jan. 14, 2005; 202Da5407

In the instant case, in a case where the workers, △△△△△, etc. provisionally seized the instant claim, and the seizure order of the said claim and the provisional seizure order overlap, △△△, etc. are treated as double seizure creditors, and without requiring a demand for distribution under Article 247(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the original copy of the decision on provisional seizure of claims is served on the third debtor, and thus has the same effect as receiving a demand for distribution. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff should have participated in the distribution by proving that he/she was subrogated to the relevant wage creditor until the distribution schedule becomes final and conclusive.