Whether a wage creditor who has preferential right to payment not requested to distribute the amount of money equivalent to the amount to be distributed to him/her under the liquidation procedure for disposition on default may make a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment against the subordinate creditor who has received a distribution (affirmative)

If wages claims which take precedence over national taxes or additional dues are included in objects of distribution of proceeds from the sale of seized property under the National Tax Collection Act pursuant to Article 35 (1) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the agency in charge of disposition on default shall ex officio determine the amount to be distributed to the wage creditors and prepare a distribution statement, and if the amount to be distributed to the wage creditors because the wage creditors failed to request the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of attached property under the procedure for disposition on default until the proceeds from the sale of the attached property are distributed to the junior creditors, the wage creditors

Article 81(1)3 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 35(1)5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes; Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act; Article 88 of the Civil Execution Act; Article 741 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 97Da43253 delivered on April 27, 1999, Supreme Court Decision 2000Da15869 Delivered on June 9, 2000 (Gong200Ha, 1640)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation

National Health Insurance Corporation

Busan District Court Decision 2002Na7159 delivered on October 25, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

If wages claims which take precedence over national taxes or additional dues are included in objects of distribution of proceeds from the sale of seized property under the National Tax Collection Act pursuant to Article 35 (1) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the agency in charge of disposition on default shall ex officio determine the amount to be distributed to the wage creditors and prepare a distribution statement. If the amount to be distributed to the wage creditors because the wage creditors failed to request the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of attached property under the procedure for disposition on default until the proceeds from the sale of the attached property are distributed to the lower creditors, the wage creditors may request the return of unjust enrichment against the lower creditors (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da43253, Apr. 27, 1999; 200Da15869, Jun. 9, 2000)

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that even if the plaintiff subrogated to the worker's right to claim wages, etc. under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act by paying wages and retirement allowances on behalf of the business owner and did not demand the distribution of the amount until the sale price is distributed in the public sale procedure under the National Tax Collection Act for vehicles owned by the business owner, the defendant who is the subordinate right holder to whom the money should have been distributed to the plaintiff may claim the return of unjust enrichment. There was no error in the decision contrary to the Supreme Court

In addition, with respect to the second instance judgment of the small amount case as in the instant case, an appeal may be filed only when it falls under Article 3 subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Trial of Small Claims Act. The assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim in the instant case constitutes an abuse of right or is not permissible under the principle of good faith is not applicable

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal shall be borne by the losing plaintiff.

Justices Zwon (Presiding Justice)