A. Whether the lien user under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act is a right to obtain preferential payment by estimating the property disposed of to a third party

(b) Whether the transferee can give notice of the transfer of claims as the deceased or representative of the transferor;

A. The lien stipulated in Article 30-2(2) of the Labor Standards Act is a so-called statutory collateral right, which is the right to be paid in preference to the claim secured by a pledge or mortgage on the whole property of an employer, or in the case of the commencement of the compulsory execution procedure or the voluntary auction procedure on the employer’s property, it is nothing more than the fact that the employer can be paid in preference to the claim secured by the pledge or mortgage or the general bond in the distribution procedure. Furthermore, it is not a right to be paid in preference to the property disposed of by

B. The notification of the assignment of claims is a notification of the concept that the transferor has known the transferor to the obligor that the transferor transferred the claim in question to the obligor, and the provision of legal act by proxy is also applied mutatis mutandis to the notification of concept. Thus, the notification of the assignment of claims is not directly done by the transferor but by the deceased or by the agent, and in such a case, it cannot be deemed that the transferee violated the provisions of Article 450 of the Civil Act by giving the transferor a notice of the assignment of claims as the deceased or the agent of the transferor, and there is no ground to prohibit it otherwise.

A. Article 30-2(2) of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3222 delivered on June 14, 198 (Gong1988, 1029) (Gong1990, 1686) 93Da30938 delivered on July 10, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 692). Supreme Court Decision 4293Da4555 delivered on December 15, 1960 (Gong193)

[Judgment of the court below]

Kimyang-ro Co., Ltd., Ltd., Pacific Joint Law Office, Attorneys Kim In-an et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na33137 delivered on February 22, 1994

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

The lien stipulated in Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act is a so-called statutory collateral, and is the same as the theory of lawsuit that can be paid in preference to the claim secured by a pledge or mortgage on the whole property of an employer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu13155, Jul. 10, 190). However, in the event a compulsory execution procedure or a voluntary auction procedure is commenced on the employer's property, it is sufficient that the employer can be paid in preference to the claim secured by a pledge or mortgage or the general claim in the distribution procedure. Furthermore, it is not sufficient that the employer can obtain preferential repayment on the property disposed of to a third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3222, Jun. 14, 1988).

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the preferential right to payment under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, such as the theory of lawsuit.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

The notification of the assignment of claims is a notification of the concept informing the transferor of the fact that the transferor transferred the claim to the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 4293Da455, Dec. 15, 1960). The provision on the representation of legal act is also applied mutatis mutandis to the notification of concept. Thus, the notification of the assignment of claims is also unreasonable even if the transferor does not directly notify the transferor of the assignment of claims, but through the deceased, or if the transferor has his agent do so

In addition, in such a case, the assignee cannot be deemed to be in violation of the provisions of Article 450 of the Civil Act because the assignee notified the assignee of the assignment of the claim as the transferor or his representative, and there is no other ground to prohibit it. Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to this, it is merely an independent opinion that the assignee cannot become the transferor's agent or the deceased as to the notification of the assignment of claims

There is no reason for this issue.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)