Collection Money, etc.

most recent three-month wage claims shall take precedence over national tax attachment claims.

Article 35 (1) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Collection Money, etc.

000 et al.

Republic of Korea and one other

2014-09-02

2015-02-03

It is confirmed that the plaintiffs' claims of Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan0000 and 2013 TaT0000 of the same court are the amount that should be paid in preference to the defendant's claims of seizure.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs were employees of 000 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “000”), but closed the business around October 2012.

B. The Seoul 00-dong 00 00-dong 000000 KRW 00,000, and KRW 0,000,000 for monthly rent, but around October 0, 2013, the deposit balance remaining after deducting the monthly rent, etc. at the time of arrears was KRW 00,000.

C. On October 00, 2013, the Defendant seized KRW 00,000,000 among the above security deposit refund claims.

D. On October 0, 2013, the Plaintiffs received a provisional attachment order from Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan000 on the wages that were not paid from 0000, and issued a payment order on October 0, 2013 at the same court 2013Kadan0000 on the following overdue wages. The above order became final and conclusive on October 00, 2013. Thereafter, the Plaintiffs again transferred the provisional attachment to the provisional attachment, and KRW 00,000,000, the amount of the provisional attachment issued by the same court 2013TT000 was transferred to the provisional attachment, and the above order was served to 00,000 around that time.

A detailed statement of overdue wages

Name

(A) the service period;

N) Unpaid Medi Medi

(C) TH rupture ruptures

(d)total;

Entrance Date;

Spevis-aeng

1

Masung A

unt4 i.

2011 A31.

UW760

W2.09: Z565,W0

V 1 X479,760

2O1ZI0.;2^001,430원

2OT1U.:6^189(670^ mii元i

2

Kim Sung-sung

Ami4 i.

miXn.

21,187^70

2〇1109.:1176&04必원

、》21,187^70

November 2012, 2012. Corresponding 0532D won

2D1M1: 1/300 p.m.

« 재

13^67330^

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsured Facts, Facts with evidence Nos. 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

National taxes, additional dues, or disposition fees for arrears are collected in preference to other public imposts or other claims, but if national taxes or additional dues are collected from sale or collection of employer's property, they shall not be collected in preference to the wages, retirement allowances, accident compensations, and other claims arising from employment, which are paid in preference to the national taxes or additional dues pursuant to Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act, etc. (Article 35 (1) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes). In this case, the final three-month wages are claims secured by pledges or mortgages on the whole property of the employer, taxes, public charges, and other claims (Article 38 (2) of the Labor

However, in the above payment order, the wages of the last three months out of the unpaid wages of Plaintiff 000 are KRW 0,000,000 from October 2012 to October, and in the case of Plaintiff 000, KRW 0,000.

Therefore, among the balance of the claim for return of the lease deposit against 000, the above plaintiffs' claims for the above plaintiffs shall be paid in preference to the defendant's claims for seizure within the limit of KRW 0,000,000, and KRW 0,000,000, and the plaintiff shall be paid in preference to the defendant's claims for seizure within the limit of KRW 0,000,000, and as long as the defendant contests this claim, the defendant has a benefit of confirmation (the defendant is separate from the procedure of the disposition for arrears by Supreme Court Decision 2007Da000 Decided October 00, 200, since the procedure is different from the procedure of the disposition for arrears, the third debtor cannot refuse the creditor's claims for collection based on the disposition for arrears on the ground that the provisional attachment of the claim for the seizure after the seizure due to the disposition for arrears is based on the claim for wages, etc. However, the purport of the above judgment is that the third debtor cannot deposit or refuse the defendant's direct collection of claims, as in this case.

Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims are groundless.