[1] Whether wage claims under Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act are included in the claims to be distributed with the proceeds from the sale of seized property under the procedure for the disposition on default (affirmative), and whether the institution in charge of disposition on default shall prepare a distribution statement by determining ex officio the amount to be distributed to the above wage creditors (affirmative)

[2] Whether a wage creditor who did not demand a distribution from the procedure of disposition on default until the sale price of attached property is entitled to claim a return of unjust enrichment against a junior creditor who received a distribution amount equivalent to the amount to be distributed to him/her (affirmative)

[1] The provision of Article 81 (1) 3 of the National Tax Collection Act is merely an example of claims with preferential rights to receive a distribution of the proceeds from the sale of attached property, but not a limited list. As long as the wage claims under Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act are claims which take precedence over general claims as provided in Article 35 (1) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, the proceeds from the sale of attached property shall be included as a matter of course in the liquidation procedure of disposition on default. As long as wage claims are included in the distribution target of the proceeds from the sale of attached property, the agency in charge of disposition on default shall ex officio determine the amount to be distributed to them and prepare a distribution statement

[2] If the amount equivalent to the amount to be distributed to the subordinate creditor was distributed to the creditor on the grounds that the wage obligee did not demand the distribution of the amount from the procedure of disposition on default until the sale price of the attached property was distributed, the wage obligee may claim his preferential payment right and claim the return of the amount against the subordinate creditor.

[1] Article 81(1)3 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 35(1)5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act / [2] Article 81(1)3 of the National Tax Collection Act, Article 35(1)5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes, Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act, Article 605 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 741 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 98Du10578 delivered on December 11, 1998 (Gong1999Sang, 156) Supreme Court Decision 97Da43253 delivered on April 27, 1999

Plaintiff 1 and three others

National Pension Management Corporation

Cheongju District Court Decision 99Na3878 delivered on February 17, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 81 (1) 3 of the National Tax Collection Act is merely an example of claims with preferential rights to receive a distribution of the proceeds from the sale of attached property, and it does not be limited. Thus, as long as wage claims under Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act are claims which take precedence over general claims, the proceeds from the sale of attached property shall be included as a matter of course in the liquidation procedure for disposition on default, as provided under Article 35 (1) 5 of the Framework Act on National Taxes. In addition, as long as wage claims are included in the objects of distribution of attached property, the agency in charge of disposition on default shall make a distribution statement by ex officio confirmation of the amount to be distributed to them (see Supreme Court Decision 98Du10578, Dec. 11, 1998). Thus, if the amount to be distributed to junior creditors has been distributed in excess of the amount to be distributed by the time of distribution, the wage creditors may claim their preferential rights and claim the return of unjust enrichment against the junior creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da45379, Apr. 297, 1997).

We affirm the judgment of the court below to the same purport, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the procedure for disposition on default as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. All the grounds of appeal are dismissed

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)