Demurrer against distribution

As wage claims for the last three months, it shall be paid to daily workers on the top of the highest priority wage claims.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

1. During the distribution procedure of ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○ Branch 2006tab27, May 25, 2006, the court shall rectify the dividend amount of KRW 28,79,060 against the Defendant among the dividend dividends distributed on May 25, 2006, KRW 21,239,060, KRW 000, KRW 29,000 against the Defendant, KRW 2,820,000, KRW 00, KRW 00 against the Plaintiff ○○○, and KRW 0,000, KRW 1,800,000.

2. The plaintiffs' remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 of the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs and the remainder at each of the defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

Of the distribution schedule prepared on May 25, 2006, the court shall correct the dividend amount of KRW 28,79,060 against the defendant as KRW 8,352,290, KRW 060, KRW 60, KRW 600, KRW 6,058,550, KRW 8,740,000, KRW 8,740,000, KRW 00, KRW 648,220, KRW 220, KRW 50, KRW 8,000, KRW 8,740, and KRW 0, KRW 5,648,220.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the entire purport of the evidence and the whole purport of the argument set forth in Nos. 1 and 7:

A. As to the Defendant’s claim for construction price against Nonparty ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), KRW 63,353,530 of the Defendant’s tax claim (value-added tax, value-added tax, KRW 6,058,550 of the Plaintiff ○○○○○’s tax claim collection, KRW 8,740,00 of the Plaintiff ○○○○○’s tax claim seizure, KRW 5,648,220 of the Plaintiff ○○○○, KRW 1,850,00 of the Nonparty ○○○○○○, KRW 12,714,760 of the former ○○○○○○, and KRW 8,00,00 of the Nonparty ○○○○○○○’s tax claim collection, and KRW 1347), the Defendant deposited several claims for provisional seizure, including claims for wage payment based on each of the wage claim under this Court’s deposit under the above court’s order 2006.

B. Following the commencement of the distribution procedure on May 25, 2006, the court set up a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 51,363,820 to the Defendant, who is the second-order holder, as the wage obligee, to the non-party Gangnam ○, who is the first-order holder, KRW 12,714,760, and KRW 12,760 to the former ○○, and KRW 8,000,000 to the former ○○, respectively, and distributes the amount of KRW 28,79,060 to the Defendant, who is the second-order holder, as the tax claim obligee.

C. At the time, the Plaintiffs were excluded from the distribution of dividends on the ground that they failed to prove that they were old-mutes by submitting a statement of national pension premium deduction, a withholding receipt for wage and salary income, a certificate of national pension premium payment, a certificate of national health

D. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and stated an objection against the amount of distribution to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of the instant case within one week thereafter.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that each amount stated in the plaintiffs' claims is the highest priority wage claim, and the above amount paid to the defendant should be distributed to the plaintiffs since they are the priority priority claim.

B. Determination

(1) In the distribution of dividends, it is ordinarily known to the court of this Court that the court has received the public documents as stated in the above 1-C. from the person claiming the right to demand a distribution of wage claims. However, it is only one way to exclude false creditors, and it does not force the person claiming a distribution to prove the right to demand a distribution only by the above methods. It is reasonable that the person entitled to demand a distribution can prove the right to demand a preferential payment by free proof.

Therefore, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether there exists preferential payment claim as alleged by the plaintiffs, in light of the health class, evidence Nos. 2 and evidence Nos. 6-2, and evidence Nos. 7 through 12, the plaintiffs were employed by the non-party company as a daily worker and were employed by the non-party company as the wages of each of the last three months until he retires on or around August 2005, ○○ is 2,940,000 won (amounting to 1,380,000 won for June + 1,320,000 + amounting to 1,40,000 months for August, 200 + Amounting to 2,820,000 won for August 2, 200, 000 won for the plaintiff's final claim No. 1,320,320,000 won for July 1, 200, 000 won (the plaintiff's final claim No.

Thus, among the above amounts of KRW 28,79,060 distributed to the defendant, each of the above amounts of KRW 7,560,000 (total amount of KRW 7,560,00) must be distributed to the plaintiffs.

(2) Furthermore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the wages of the last three months exceed the above recognized amount as alleged by the plaintiffs ( even if based on the evidence No. 2 (number of overdue wages) submitted by the plaintiffs, the amount claimed by the plaintiffs is included in the overdue wages before the last three months, and the deduction reaches the above amount if it is deducted).

(3) Finally, we examine whether the plaintiffs' retirement allowances for the last 3 years constitute workers eligible for retirement allowances should be preferentially distributed.

In light of the fact that the plaintiffs worked in the non-party company for more than one year and are entitled to retirement allowances, there is a statement in the evidence No. 7, stating the statement of Non-party 1, the former representative director of the non-party company, the non-party company's sexual ○.

However, the above evidence is the statement of an employer at risk of punishment due to the failure to pay wages in arrears to the plaintiffs, and even based on the above statement, the plaintiffs did not subscribe to the national pension insurance, etc. unlike the non-party Gangwon-do, etc. as a daily worker, and received 60,000 won per day, it is difficult to readily conclude that the plaintiffs are workers entitled to retirement pay as it is, in full view of the above evidence.

Rather, even according to the plaintiffs' assertion, the plaintiffs provided daily work as a daily worker at the construction site according to each level, and considering all the circumstances shown in the records of this case, including the statement of evidence No. 2 (refising wages in arrears), the plaintiffs can be acknowledged as being employed for less than one year and merely provided daily work during the pertinent period. Thus, it is reasonable that the plaintiffs are not eligible for retirement allowances.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit without any further review (the retirement pay calculated by the plaintiffs is a regular worker, after calculating the average wage on the premise that it is a regular worker, and it is nothing more than claiming the calculation of the retirement

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim cannot be contested against the distribution schedule which was lawfully prepared on the ground that it is a wage claim. The defendant presented it on the ground that it is based on the Supreme Court Decision 95Nu2562 delivered on June 13, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 95Da41611 delivered on April 22, 1997, Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686 delivered on May 14, 199.

On the other hand, it is natural that the wage claim for the last 3 months in the distribution procedure like this case is prior to the defendant's tax claim and can be contested against the distribution schedule made by mistake through the procedure of raising an objection to distribution.

The above decisions cited by the defendant revealed the legal principles that even if they are the persons with preferential rights, they cannot seek direct payment by excluding the validity of seizure disposition by other creditors, and that they are preferentially distributed from realization due to compulsory execution.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted due to legal principles.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the distribution schedule prepared on May 25, 2006 in this court 2006, the court should rectify the dividend amount of KRW 28,79,060 against the defendant as KRW 21,239,060, KRW 2000, KRW 2940,000, KRW 000, KRW 2820,000, KRW 200,000 for the dividend amount against the plaintiff Cho ○, and KRW 2,820,00 for the dividend amount against the plaintiff Kim○ as KRW 1,80,000.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are groundless.