The priority relationship between the wage claim and the taxation claim is merely the relationship between the wage claim and the taxation claim for the same debtor.

The priority relationship between a wage claim and a tax claim is merely the relationship between a wage claim and a tax claim against the same debtor, and there is no room for application in cases where a wage debtor and a tax obligor are different.

Article 35 (Priority of National Tax)

2017da 83191 (principal lawsuit) Confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposit money

2017 Ghana 92829 (Counterclaim) Confirmation of a claim for withdrawal of deposit money

(Counterclaim Defendant)

Korea

(Counterclaim Plaintiff)

Maternus

December 14, 2017

November 2011

1. On December 8, 2011, it is confirmed that the right to claim payment of deposit money on KRW 142,955,210 deposited by the non-party Republic of Korea (referring to △△△○○○○○○○○○○○○ on December 8, 201, to claim payment against the principal defendant.

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff by aggregating the principal lawsuit and counterclaims.

Cheong-gu Office

【Main Office】

The same shall apply to the order.

[Counterclaim]

On December 8, 2011, it is confirmed that Korea deposited 142,955,210 won with ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, a claim for payment of deposit against the Defendant-Counterclaim

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2010, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea on the ground that the Defendant acquired the right to claim for the system management service payment from the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) to the non-party company (hereinafter referred to as “non-party company”) and was sentenced on May 26, 201 that “the Republic of Korea would pay the Defendant KRW 96,213,630 and delay damages therefor,” and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is (hereinafter referred to as “the final judgment of this case”).

B. On October 10, 2011, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) attached the amount of money until the amount in arrears is paid to the Defendant, based on a tax claim equivalent to KRW 226,248,80,00 of global income tax and additional dues against the Defendant, etc., and the notification of seizure reached the Republic of Korea on October 13, 201.

다. 대한민국은 2011. 12. 8. ○○지방법원 ○○지원 ○○호로 '원고(소관 : ☆☆세무서)의 위 2011. 10. 10.자 압류와 △△세무서의 같은 날짜 피고에 대한 법인세 등 139,462,200원 상당의 조세채권에 기한 압류 통지가 각 대한민국에게 도달하였고, 피고가 이 사건 확정판결에 기한 채권이 근로기준법 제38조에 따라 조세에 우선하는 임금채권이라고 주장하고 있어 정당한 채권자가 누구인지 알 수 없다'는 이유로, 피 공탁자를 원고(소관 : ☆☆세무서), △△세무서, 피고로 하여 이 사건 확정판결에 따른 채무금 127,740,070원과 해당 본안사건에 관한 2011. 11. 11.자 소송비용액확정결정(◆◆지방법원 ◆◆호)에 따른 채무금 15,215,140원 합계 142,955,210원(=127,740,070원 + 15,215,140원)을 변제공탁하였다(이하 '이 사건 공탁'이라 한다).

D. On October 10, 201, the seizure of △△ Tax Director on October 10, 201, was released on July 10, 2015.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the main claim

The fact that the seizure of the △△ Tax book was cancelled due to the extinguishment of the delinquent amount, the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit is deemed to exist in the Plaintiff. Therefore, the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit shall be deemed to exist in the Plaintiff.

B. Determination on the counterclaim

1) As to this, the defendant's claim under the final judgment of this case is a claim that the defendant acquired in order to secure the payment of wage claims against the non-party company, and its substance should be repaid in preference to the plaintiff's tax claims, and thus, the defendant's claim for payment of deposit money is sought against the plaintiff

2) On the other hand, even if it is assumed, as alleged by the Defendant, that the instant claim for acquisition of the income amount changes into the nature of the wage claim and has such substance, the preferential relationship between the wage claim and the tax claim stipulated in Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act is merely a relationship between the wage claim and the tax claim against the same debtor, and there is no room to apply where the wage obligor (foreign company or the Republic of Korea) and the tax obligor (the defendant) are different as in the instant case, and no other ground exists for the Defendant’s claim that should be repaid in preference to

3) The defendant's claim is without merit.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is justified, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.