Since it is reasonable to view that the company provided labor under employment, it is recognized as wage claim.

Since it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff and the designated parties provided labor under employment of the company, they have a wage claim against the company, and the Plaintiff raised an objection under the distribution schedule on behalf of the designated parties, therefore, they will be prior to the national tax claim in the distribution order of deposit money.

2012Na2563 Demurrer against distribution

Section AA

Korea

Changwon District Court Decision 201Da6635 Decided January 17, 2012

October 9, 2012

November 6, 2012

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

1. Purport of claim

With respect to the dividends procedure case of Changwon District Court 2010 Tag2167, the dividends amounting to the defendant shall be KRW 000,000, and KRW 000,000,000 for the plaintiff (the appointed party and the hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") shall be corrected to KRW 000,000, respectively, among the dividends table prepared by the said court on February 17, 201.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are recognized in full view of each entry in Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 2-1 to 3, Eul evidence 3, and 6, unless there is any dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire argument:

A. On February 2, 2010, BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BB Construction”) received orders from the Busan Regional Land Management Office (hereinafter referred to as the “CC Do Management Office”) for improvement works for two crosssections outside of national highways No. 00 EE zones (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction works”).

B. On December 28, 2010, in order to collect the total amount of value-added tax and corporate tax in arrears, the Defendant seized the construction cost claim (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction cost claim”) held by BB construction against the Jindong-do management office, and each of the designated parties listed in the Plaintiff and the attached list (hereinafter referred to as “designated party”) on November 29, 2010, attached the instant construction cost claim amounting to KRW 000 on BB construction as preserved right by Busan District Court 2010Kadan0169, Busan District Court 2010, and around November 29, 2010, applied for payment order of KRW 200 with the Busan District Court 2010 tea25136.

C. On December 30, 2010, on the ground that Article 248(3) of the Civil Execution Act was the cause of deposit with the Changwon District Court’s branch office, the management office deposited KRW 000 as the instant construction cost claim under the said court No. 1389, 2010.

D. Accordingly, on February 17, 2011, the said court prepared a distribution schedule to the Defendant, among the amount of KRW 000 to be actually distributed, and to distribute the amount of KRW 000 to the Defendant at that time (hereinafter referred to as “instant distribution schedule”), in which the Plaintiff raised an objection against KRW 00,00 among the amount that the Defendant received as dividends, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution of this case within one week thereafter.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff and the designated parties were employed in BB from August 2010 to October 2010, and provided labor in the construction of this case, but they did not receive wages during the pertinent period. The plaintiff and the designated parties had a total of KRW 000 for BB construction, and the above wage claims of the plaintiff and the designated parties should take priority over the tax claims against BB construction of the defendant. Thus, the instant dividend table is unfair within the extent that the plaintiff distributes 000 won to the defendant. Thus, the instant dividend table should be revised as described in the purport of the claim.

B. Determination

According to Gap evidence 2-1 to 19, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 8-1, Eul evidence 1-2, and Eul evidence 11-9, and Eul evidence 6-9's testimony, the plaintiff's 2-1 and Eul evidence 1-9 were employed by the court below as a daily worker, and the plaintiff's 1-2-6-2-6-6-6-2-6-2-6-2-6-2-6-2-6-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7-77-7-77-7-7-77-7-7-77-7-77-7-7-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-77-7-7-77-7-7-10

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal against this is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.