(a) Whether the person having the right to a real estate provisional seizure before the commencement of an auction has failed to submit a demand for distribution and a statement of claims;

(b) Scope of retirement allowances eligible for preferential payment under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act;

(a) The real estate provisional attachment authority prior to the commencement of the auction procedure shall be treated as naturally a demand for distribution even if it did not demand a distribution, so such provisional attachment authority shall not exclude it from the distribution of dividends even if it did not submit the claim statement.

B. In light of the legislative process, purpose, and purport of Article 30-2(2) of the Labor Standards Act, the phrase “final three-month” in this Article appears not to be a retirement allowance. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the retirement allowance eligible for preferential reimbursement under this Act is limited to the retirement allowance for the portion of which the retirement allowance has worked for the last three months, and in principle, the total amount of the retirement allowance is subject to the retirement allowance.

A. Articles 589(3), 653, and 658 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 30-2(2) of the Labor Standards Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 93Da19276 delivered on March 22, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1305) 94Da25728 delivered on November 22, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 71) B. Supreme Court Decision 94Da5474 delivered on July 25, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2942)

The Industrial Bank of Korea Attorney Kang Jae-hoon

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na31374 delivered on October 28, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, it is just for the court below to recognize the fact that Defendant 2 received a request for distribution by collecting delegations from the designated parties listed in the annexed list 2, 3, 5, and 11 of the designated parties, and it cannot be deemed that there was any error in violation of the rules of evidence in the process, and it is not contradictory to the measures that dismissed the claim portion against the designated parties listed in the above list 2, 3, 5, and 11 of the designated parties and its reasons. The grounds for appeal

2. On the second ground for appeal

A real estate provisional seizure right holder prior to the commencement of an auction procedure is naturally treated as demanding a distribution even if he did not demand a distribution (Articles 658 and 589(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, even if a person holding a provisional seizure right fails to submit a claim statement, he/she shall not be excluded from the distribution of dividends. The judgment below to the same purport is justifiable, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles under Article 653 of the Civil Procedure Act, which affected

3. On the third ground for appeal

According to Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, wages, retirement allowances, and accident compensation for the last three months shall be paid in preference to claims secured by mortgages, etc. on the whole property of the employer, taxes, public charges, and other claims. In light of the legislative process, purpose, and purport of the above provision, the phrase "final three-month" in the above provision appears not to be a retirement allowance. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the retirement allowance eligible for preferential repayment under the above provision is limited to the retirement allowance for the last three months, and in principle, it shall be deemed that the total amount of the retirement allowance is eligible. The judgment below is justifiable, and it does not err by misapprehending the legal principles on preferential payment of retirement allowances under Article 30-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for appeal on this point are not acceptable.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)