In a case where Party B, who had worked as Party B’s clothing store manager, retired and did not receive the deposited money, sales commission, and retirement allowance paid as security deposit; thereafter, Party B filed a claim for payment of the deposited money and sales commission in accordance with the rehabilitation plan, asserting that Party B’s deposited money and sales commission were merely cash payments as rehabilitation claims, the case holding that Party B’s deposited money and sales commission claims cannot be deemed as public-interest claims, since Party B’s independent merchant, not Party A’s employee, and the claim for retirement allowance premised on the premise that Party B is an employee.

In a case where Eul, a company, retired, was not paid the deposited money, sales commission, and retirement allowance paid as security deposit while Gap retired from office, and Eul filed a claim for payment of Eul's deposited money and sales commission in accordance with the rehabilitation plan against Gap company, claiming that Eul's deposited money and sales commission claims were merely cash payments as rehabilitation claims, the case holding that Gap company is not a public interest claim, since Eul's agent, interim management store, department store direct management store, and head office directly operated Eul company, Eul entered Eul company's direct management store and entered Eul company into an interim management contract with Gap company and operated the department store's interim management store, and according to the interim management contract, Eul's ownership belongs to Gap company, and Eul bears a certain ratio of sales commission for the goods sold from Eul company, and Eul bears personnel expenses by directly employing employees within the intermediate management store.

Article 179 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act

Plaintiff (Law Firm Dong, Attorneys Go Jae-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Noh Man-Gyeong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

May 4, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 20,649,475 won with 20% interest per annum from December 15, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

1. The plaintiff's ground for claim

From November 30, 2013 to November 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant Company as a manager and worked at the clothing store in the former NCweb department store of the Defendant Company. Although the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,00 for the name of the deposit money to the Defendant Company, it did not return it after retirement, the Plaintiff did not receive the total sales commission for August, 2014, the amount of KRW 9,987,87,870, and the amount of KRW 3,985,170. On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 1,62,791 out of the deposited money under the rehabilitation plan of the Defendant Company, 1,660,674 out of the deposited money, 206, 709, 708, 709, 7096, 709, 709, 708, 709, 7078

2. Basic facts and issues

On March 25, 2015, Seoul Central District Court 2015 Ma100053, rehabilitation procedures began with respect to the defendant company. The defendant company recognized the plaintiff's claim on the security deposit and sales commission claim as rehabilitation claims and submitted the rehabilitation plan. The above court approved the rehabilitation plan that was approved the execution of the rehabilitation claim on August 13, 2015, the principal and interest prior to the commencement of rehabilitation claims (a lease, commercial transaction claim, etc.) was 48.4% exempted, 16.6% in cash, 35% in total, and interest subsequent to the commencement of debt-equity swap. The defendant company paid to the plaintiff the repayment amounting to 3,323,565 won in accordance with the rehabilitation plan on August 28, 2015 (1,62,791 +1,60,774 won in total) and the purport of the rehabilitation claim is recognized as having not been settled between the parties to the rehabilitation claim and the entire parties to the rehabilitation claim.

Therefore, the key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff constitutes a priority claim notwithstanding the above rehabilitation plan, namely, whether the Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendant Company.

3. Determination

A’s evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2 are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff is an employee employed by the Defendant Company, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements Nos. 1, 2, and 8 through 16, the Defendant Company: (a) operated the store by means of an agency, intermediate management store, department store directly operated store, and head office; (b) the Plaintiff entered the Defendant Company’s direct management store around March 20, 209 and entered into an interim management contract with the Defendant Company and operated the intermediate management store at the main office store in the NCCwab department store from around November 30, 2013; (c) according to the interim management contract, the ownership of the store facilities and the goods belongs to the Defendant Company; (d) the Plaintiff was entrusted with the management of the goods from the Defendant Company to pay a certain rate of operating expenses for the sold goods; and (e) registered the business in the name of the Plaintiff. In light of these facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was an independent merchant, not an employee of the Defendant Company; and (e) the Plaintiff’s deposit money claimed by the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a retirement allowance under the premise that it is an employee.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jeon Chang-chul