Whether the estimated premium claims under Article 17 (1) of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance take precedence over the secured claim of the mortgage established after the statutory payment period ( March 31 of the pertinent insurance year) (affirmative)

Articles 17(1) and 30 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance

Korean Bank (Law Firm Democratic, Attorneys Seo-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea Labor Welfare Corporation (Attorney Lee Jong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Na1696 Decided June 20, 2008

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to Articles 17(1) and 30 of the Act on the Collection of Insurance Premiums, etc. for Employment Insurance and Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance (hereinafter “Act”), which came into force on January 1, 2005, a business owner shall report and pay to the defendant the estimated premium calculated by multiplying the total amount of wages to be paid to workers during one year for each insurance year by the employment insurance premium rate and industrial accident compensation insurance premium rate until March 31, 200 of the insurance year. The insurance premium and other dues under the above Act shall be collected in preference to other claims except national and local taxes, but the secured claims such as the mortgage established before the due date for payment of the insurance premium, etc. shall not take precedence over the above secured claims. Thus, the above enforcement date shall be deemed that the Defendant’s estimated premium claims under Article 17(1) of the above Act shall take precedence over the secured claims established after March 31, 200 of the pertinent insurance year.

In light of the fact that the court below recognized preferential payment rights such as employment insurance premiums and other claims in the Act to secure insurance premiums for public insurance, employment insurance and industrial accident compensation insurance, and that a mortgagee, etc. can predict the existence of employment insurance premiums and other claims which take precedence over a right to collateral security pursuant to Articles 17 and 30 of the Act, the court below declared the obligation to pay insurance premiums by setting the deadline for payment of the estimated premium up to March 31 of the pertinent insurance year, and interpreted the purport of setting the priority order of claims secured by a right to collateral security based on the payment deadline prescribed in Article 17 of the Act. The final settlement system prescribed in the Act is merely a system that allows the settlement of the estimated premium to be settled based on the number of wages actually paid at the beginning of the following insurance year, and that it is not possible to determine the amount of wages to be paid at the beginning of the following insurance year, and that the provision on insurance premiums is merely a system that extends the deadline for payment of the estimated premium under certain conditions to lower the financial difficulties of the business owner, and thus, determined that the Plaintiff’s aforementioned obligation should still be deemed legitimate for 205 days.

According to the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the provisions on the final settlement and installment of the estimated premium to the defendant, the insurance premium obligation to be borne by the business owner to the defendant is established by the number of days during which the insurance relation was actually established in the pertinent insurance year. Thus, the ground of appeal purporting that the amount calculated by the day before the date of establishment of the plaintiff's right to collateral security among the estimated premiums of this case should take precedence over the secured claim

The court below did not err in interpreting the law on the priority order in the collection of premiums as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)