[1] The meaning of "total property of an employer" subject to preferential rights to payment of wages under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act

[2] Whether the property owned by an individual partner with unlimited liability of a limited partnership company is included in the "all property owned by an employer" (negative)

[1] The provision of Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act limits the effect of general security rights on an exceptional basis at a request of the public interest in order to guarantee workers' minimum living, and provides preferential rights to wage claims. In light of the purpose of legislation, "total property of an employer" subject to preferential rights to wage refers to the whole property of an employer who is a party to a labor contract and is the primary employer who bears the primary obligation to pay wages, and therefore, if the employer is a corporation, it shall refer only to the property of the corporation itself and shall not be included in the personal property of a business manager such as

[2] Even if a limited partnership company is unable to fully pay its obligations with its assets, or a compulsory execution against its assets becomes effective, it cannot be interpreted that the limited partnership company's general partner is included in the "all property of an employer" which is the subject of preferential payment right, considering the nature of complementary liability, the influence on the protection of trust of the general security right holder and trade order, etc.

[1] Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, Article 212 and Article 270 of the Commercial Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da30938 delivered on January 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 692), Supreme Court Decision 93Da61611 delivered on December 9, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 444 delivered on December 27, 1994) (Gong1995Sang, 692)

Industrial Bank of Korea (Attorney Seo-gu et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 85 others (Attorney Kim Jong-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 94Na1683 delivered on November 24, 1994

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the provision of Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, "wages, retirement allowances, and accident compensation for the last three months of workers shall be paid in preference to claims secured by pledges or mortgages on the whole property of the employer, taxes, public charges, and other claims." This exceptionally limits the effect of general security rights on the part of the worker's property at the request of the public interest in order to guarantee the minimum living of the worker. In light of the legislative intent of this, the whole property of the employer subject to the right to preferential payment of wages refers to the whole property of the employer, who is the primary debtor of the obligation to pay wages as the party to the labor contract. Therefore, if the employer is a corporation, it is reasonable to see that the personal property of the person in charge of the management of the company, such as the representative of the corporation, is not included in the company's own property. Furthermore, even if the limited partnership is unable to fully pay the company's debts with the company's property or compulsory execution on the company's property, it can not be interpreted to include the case of the general partner's property.

2. In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that although the Defendants, who were retired workers of the construction company for filling up the non-party limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company"), did not obtain the satisfaction of the claim regarding the wage claim in the judgment of the non-party company's last three months's wage and retirement allowance against the non-party company's representative member and the non-party who is the general partner of the same company, held the above non-party liable for supplementary liability for the above wage obligation, the above non-party's real estate does not constitute the non-party's whole property subject to the right to preferential payment of wage under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, and thus, the wage claim of the defendants' judgment cannot be superior to the plaintiff's claim secured by the right to preferential payment of wage under the above provision of the law, and there is no error of law

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)