Attachment order as delinquent claims and claims transferred in lieu of satisfaction of wage claims;

Even if an employer’s claim is transferred in lieu of repayment of wage claim against the employer, if the claim is seized due to a disposition on default against the transferor, the attachment shall take precedence over the attachment only when the obligor reaches the notification of the assignment of claim before the notification of attachment reaches the obligor. Moreover, it cannot be said that the obligee’s right to preferential payment is recognized as wage claim under the Labor Standards Act regardless of the prior notification.

Article 30-2 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 696 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellee-appellant-appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee-Appellant-Appellee

Kim Jong-bong

Korea

Seoul Civil Site Act (Law No. 92Gahap63097 delivered on January 19, 1993)

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Nonparty 80,219,072 won deposited as Seoul District Court No. 993 on February 7, 1992, and on March 5, 192 of the same year, Nonparty 73,124,861 won deposited as the gold No. 1764 of the same court on March 5, 192, and Nonparty 2498 of the same year by the said court on March 20, 201, Nonparty 243,364,393 won, respectively, are confirmed to be the Plaintiff.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. On the 6th anniversary of the issuance of the 9th 6th 6th 4th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 66th 6th 192. 196

2. The Plaintiff goes bankrupt from November 1, 1991 to 56 workers in arrears and transfers each of the above claims to the Plaintiff, the representative of the said workers, instead of the said workers’ wage. The receipt of the transfer amount constitutes a repayment receipt of wage claims in substance. As wages claims priority over taxes, public charges, etc. pursuant to Article 30-2 of the Labor Standards Act, the obligor’s right to payment in advance belongs to the Plaintiff regardless of whether the notice of the seizure was issued prior to the delivery of the above assignment to the new world and lot shopping. Thus, the right to preferential payment in accordance with Article 30-2 of the Labor Standards Act refers to the Plaintiff’s right to payment in advance from realization of the obligor’s property. Thus, even if the Plaintiff was assigned with the employer’s right to payment in lieu of the employer’s right to payment in arrears, so long as it is necessary to transfer the claim to the transferor, the right to payment in advance can be acknowledged as having priority over the obligee’s right to payment in advance before the delivery of the claim reaches 185th of new claim.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is unfair, and it is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Young-il (Presiding Judge)