The plaintiff's claim can not be seen as a wage claim with preferential payment right since it constitutes a contract price claim.

It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes a wage claim with preferential right to payment, and in fact, it constitutes a claim for construction price, and even if other workers have entrusted the Plaintiff with the transfer or collection of their wage claims, such transfer or collection delegation is a trust with the main purpose of making the Plaintiff conduct litigation, and it is not effective under Article 7 of the Trust Act.

Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes

Daegu District Court Decision 2013Kadan1603

Ma-○

Republic of Korea and 1

April 16, 2014

May 21, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Of the distribution schedule prepared by the above court on October 16, 2013 with respect to the distribution procedure case of Daegu District Court Kimcheon-ro 488, Daegu District Court, Daegu District Court, the dividend amount of KRW 476,029 against the plaintiff is KRW 16,650,000, the dividend amount of KRW 18,742,050 against the defendant's Republic of Korea is KRW 3,635,50, and the dividend amount of KRW 1,067,422 against the defendant's High ○ is corrected, respectively.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

After entering into a verbal contract with Nonparty ○○ Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction”), the Plaintiff provided daily labor from April 6, 2013 to May 12, 2013, and thereby did not receive a total of KRW 16,650,000, and as a wage obligee, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive dividends in preference to the Defendants based on the right to preferential payment of wage claims under Article 38(2) of the Labor Standards Act.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's claims against ○○ Construction are insufficient to regard them as wage claims for which preferential payment right is recognized, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them, and considering the whole purport of the pleadings in addition to the entries in the evidence Nos. 2 through 4, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff's claims against ○○ Construction constitute a claim for construction payment, since the plaintiff received labor contract from ○○ Construction and ○○ Construction and ○○ Construction and ○ Construction and ○ Construction and ○ Construction were built with only one worker. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that the above claim of ○○○ Construction is a wage claim is without merit.

B. In addition, in addition to the above evidence, it is acknowledged that other workers except the plaintiff did not participate at all in the dividend procedure and the lawsuit in this case, and the plaintiff's assertion is accepted as it is, and the other workers' transfer or delegation of their wage claims to the plaintiff for the convenience of collecting their wage claims, and such transfer or delegation of collection is a trust with the focus of making the plaintiff conduct the litigation ultimately, and it is not effective under Article 7 of the Trust Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety because it does not appear to be any part, and it is so decided as per Disposition.