beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In the case of a compulsory auction by official auction on real estate owned by the debtor FF farming association corporation (the representative G; hereinafter referred to as the "company of this case"), the court of execution prepared the amount of the claim amount to the Plaintiff, the debtor of the FF farming association (the maximum amount of the claim amount of KRW 480 million) of KRW 366,576,209, which is the amount to be distributed on June 13, 2016, as the date of distribution, as the amount of the claim amount of KRW 410,353,895,63.45%, and KRW 16,170,486 (the corresponding amount of the unpaid wages and retirement allowances from September 17, 2014 to January 13, 2015) and the amount of unpaid retirement allowances from KRW 13,576,518 (the corresponding amount of the retirement allowances from January 20, 2015 to KRW 480,519,97).
B. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends distributed by the Defendants on the aforementioned date of distribution, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on the 17th of the same month.
[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]
2. The parties' assertion
A. An officer, such as a director with executive authority of the company, is not a shareholder of the company, but is entrusted with certain business affairs by the company. Thus, barring any special circumstance, an employee under the employer’s direction and supervision and cannot be deemed an employee under the Labor Standards Act because he/she is not in an employment relationship that provides certain labor and receives certain wages (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da2828, Dec. 22, 1992). 2) An employee entitled to exercise the preferential right to pay wage claims shall be an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Defendant A is currently registered as an auditor of the company of this case. Defendant B was the representative from February 1, 201 to December 5, 2012, and Defendant C was registered as a director from June 7, 2011.
3. In addition, the instant company has actually paid the labor income tax to the Defendants.