In the case of a company in which the entity is identical to that of an individual company, whether the entity is recognized as having preferential rights to wage for the property of the individual owner (affirmative)

In general, the term "employer" under Article 30-2 (2) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997) refers to an individual management; in the case of corporate management, it refers to an individual management; in the case of a corporate management, a corporate owner itself; and in the case of a corporate owner, the representative director's property is not recognized; however, in the case of a corporate owner, even if the employer is a corporate owner, it shall be deemed that the corporate owner is the same person as the individual owner and the corporate owner. Thus, it shall be deemed

Article 30-2 (2) of the former Labor Standards Act (amended by Act No. 5309 of March 13, 1997)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

National Bank of Korea (Attorney Nam-hee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Park Jae-chul and 36 others (Attorney Lee Young-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

On May 28, 1996, the Daegu District Court deleted KRW 733,469,569 from the amount of dividends to the plaintiff in the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on May 28, 1996, KRW 893,164,654 from the amount of dividends to the defendants, and KRW 159,695,085 from the amount of dividends to the defendants, respectively.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in the statements Nos. 1, 2, and 5-1 through 3, 6-1 through 3, and 5-1 through 4, and the whole purport of the pleading Nos. 5-4, and there is no reflective evidence.

A. On October 30, 1993, the Plaintiff filed an application for an auction to enforce a security right under the Daegu District Court Decision 95 Ma35494 on the basis of the foregoing collateral security right, and subsequently, the said real estate was sold at auction on the following grounds: (a) the maximum debt amount of KRW 1,30,000,000; and (b) the debtor’s establishment registration was completed with respect to the real estate listed in the separate list owned by Nonparty Jae-hee.

B. The Defendants asserted that, as employees of the Hanjin Machinery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party Co., Ltd.) operated by the above Park Jae-hee, they did not receive wages and retirement allowances for the last three months as stipulated in Article 30-2(2) of the Labor Standards Act, and filed an application for distribution to the above auction court on January 29, 1996. Accordingly, the above court prepared a distribution schedule with the amount of 893,164,654 won, which is the date of distribution of the auction of this case, which is 159,695,085 won, and 1,089,69,467,849 won, which is the creditors of the above auction of this case, and the amount of 73,469,569 won, which is the amount reported to the Plaintiff in the second order.

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts that the real estate listed in the attached list is the real estate owned by the non-party 1, and the claims such as wages, etc. distributed in the first order are claims for employees of the first order, a corporation. The whole property of the employer under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act refers only to the property of the corporation if the employer is a corporation, as in the case of this case, and since the personal property of the representative director is not included in this case, the defendants cannot exercise the preferential right of wages under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act as to the real estate listed in the attached list, and accordingly, the above distribution schedule should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim. Accordingly, the defendants asserted that the non-party 2 should purchase the real estate listed in the attached list in the attached list in order to establish a new factory from the plaintiff 1,00,000 won as an individual company, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the above list in the name of the non-party 3 company's name and the above company's retirement allowance should be included in the above list of the non-party 2 company.

B. Therefore, an employer under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act generally refers to an individual owner in the case of an individual management, and a representative director in the case of a corporate management, an individual owner's property is not recognized. However, in the case of a corporate owner, even if the employer is a corporate owner, the individual owner and the corporate owner shall be deemed the same person in the case of a corporate owner, so the employer shall be deemed the same person in the case of a corporate owner. Thus, the wage lien shall also be deemed to be granted to the individual owner's property. Considering the whole purport of the arguments in the above, the non-party company is in the form of a corporate body, but the non-party company uses the attached list, which was used before the conversion into the office and factory, as it is, the non-party company's property is not a new corporate owner or the non-party corporate owner's property, and even if the non-party company actually moves into the above corporate owner's property, the non-party company is not a company's employee's own property or the above company's property.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition (attached Form omitted)

Judges Lee Jin-hee (Presiding Judge)