Since the unpaid construction cost falls under personnel expenses, such claim shall take precedence over national taxes.

It is reasonable to see that it is a claim for wages under Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act, such as receiving a favorable judgment in civil litigation due to the payment of construction costs and personnel expenses, or other claims arising from labor relations, and it shall be paid in preference

Article 35 of the National Tax Collection Act

2014 Gohap9173 Demurrer against distribution

S SS

Korea

December 5, 2014

December 19, 2014

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 110,249,255 won with 5% interest per annum from November 30, 2014 to December 19, 2014, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against AA

(1) On September 201, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) from the BB industry corporation (hereinafter “B industry”); and (b) O

OO In the Army** AA (hereinafter referred to as the "AA") which has been subcontracted with 'A' for the structural construction of military installations, part of the mold construction (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant construction") in the course of re-construction from the corporation A (hereinafter referred to as the "A").

B re-subcontracted and performed the construction of this case with their team members.

(2) On October 8, 201, the Plaintiff’s work quantity with AA as to the instant construction project.

(i)in writing, a performance-based work contract with the content of being paid the work price.

The preparation was also made.

(3) The Plaintiff directly employs its team members from November 201 to AA.

AA requested a cycle, accordingly, on November 25, 201, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

oral arrangements for the settlement of the cost of construction by calculating a daily allowance for the team members;

was concluded.

(4) AA는 이와 같이 일당 방식으로 산출한 공사대금 중 합계 95,995,780원(= 2011. 12.분 85,147,270원 + 2012. 1.분 10,847,510원)을 원고에게 지급하지 않고 있었고, 이에 원고는 2012. 2. 21. 서울QQ지방법원 20OO카단OO호로 위 공사대금채권을 청구채권으로 하여 AA가 BB산업에 대하여 가지는 공사대금채권 중 위 95,995,780원에 이를 때까지의 금액에 관하여 채권가압류결정을 받았다.

(5) 원고는 AA에 대하여 서울QQ지방법원 20OO가단OO호로 위 미지급 공사대금은 실질적으로 인건비에 해당한다고 주장하며 미지급 인건비 95,995,780원의 지급을 구하는 소송을 제기하여 위 법원은 2013. 1. 7. 'AA는 원고에게 공사대금 내지 인건비 95,995,700원 및 이에 대하여 2012. 4. 21.부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 20%의 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 지급하라'는 취지의 판결을 선고하였다.

(6) 원고는 2013. 1. 18. 서울QQ지방법원 20OO타채OO호로 위 가압류결정에 대하

10,249,255 won (=principal amount of KRW 95,94,700) and interest on the decision and claim amount of KRW 110,249,255

With 14,254,55 won, AA received a seizure and collection order concerning the claim for construction cost against BB industry.

(b) Commencement of distribution procedures and preparation of distribution schedule;

(1) Meanwhile, as of July 24, 2013, AA was delinquent in the amount of KRW 217,378,270 in addition to value-added tax. On the same day, the Defendant seized the amount of national taxes until it reaches the amount of national taxes in arrears, among the amount of debts that BB industry has paid to A due to the said delinquency in national taxes.

(2) BB산업은 서울QQ지방법원 20OO금OO호로 AA에 대한 채무 123,188,531원을 공탁하였고, 위 공탁금에 관하여 서울QQ지방법원 20OO타기OO호로 배당절차가 개시되었다.

(3) In the aforementioned distribution procedure, the said court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the entire amount of dividends of KRW 123,166,881 on July 29, 2014 is distributed to the Defendant, and the Defendant received the above amount of dividends on August 2014.

Facts without dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, and the whole pleadings

chapter 6

2. Determination as to the cause of action

On November 25, 201, AA entered into an oral agreement between the Plaintiff and its team members to settle the construction cost by calculating a daily allowance on the Plaintiff and its team members. It is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff and its team members actually been directly employed by A and carried out the construction work. The following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective entries (including the serial number) and the entire arguments: ① around December 2, 2011 and around January 2, 201, AA prepared a check and a daily statement of payment for the Plaintiff and its team members to the effect that the Plaintiff and its team members were paid 10,000,000 won per day for the Plaintiff and its team members; ② the Plaintiff should be paid 1,00,000 won per day for the remainder of the team members by 1,200,000 won for the Plaintiff’s wages by 1,200,000 won for each of the Plaintiff’s wages by 1,200,000 won for the Plaintiff’s labor contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 110,249,255 won out of the dividend received as above by return of unjust enrichment, which the Plaintiff should have been properly distributed, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 30, 2014 to December 19, 2014, which is the day following the day when the copy of the claim of this case and the application for modification of the cause of the claim of this case was served.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.