logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2020.02.05 2019가단106107
배당이의
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Case summary

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the Plaintiff and the mortgagee-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-mortgage-based, and the Defendant, as the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor B corporation, was in the first order under the instant distribution schedule on the ground of the receipt of substitute payment claims by the Korea Workers' Compensation & Welfare Corporation, which is the top priority wage claim, as the bankruptcy trustee of the debtor

B. In accordance with the proviso of Article 415-2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to receive reimbursement in preference to other secured creditors in exercising the right to separation of property belonging to the bankrupt estate. However, the Plaintiff’s distribution prior to the Plaintiff’s claim in preference to the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful and unreasonable, and the Plaintiff’s correction of the instant distribution schedule is sought as the instant lawsuit, such as the written claim in the purport of the claim.

C. As to this, the Defendant asserts that Article 8 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act is inconsistent with the proviso of Article 415-2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, but the contradictory provision before and after the interpretation is unclear, and that the Debtor Rehabilitation Act shall enter into force on December 30, 2014 and shall apply from the claims, such as the first wage accrued after the enforcement of the aforementioned six months after the enactment. In light of the purport of the Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208378 Decided November 27, 2015, the Defendant may not conclude that the right of the holder of the right to separate settlement in the distribution procedure is superior to the claims of the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Corporation that paid substitute payments.

2. Whether a claim for substitute payment by the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation under the proviso to Article 415-2 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act is unable to have the right of priority repayment;

A. Article 38(2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 12(2) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act provide that workers’ wage claims and retirement allowance claims for the last three months against an employer shall be against the employer’s property.

arrow