1. Overview of the Case
Two young workers who had been employed at a startup found themselves in serious financial difficulty after their resignation, having gone unpaid for several months in both wages and severance pay. In particular, instead of paying wages properly, the company shifted its funding burden by having the workers pay the company's operating expenses with their personal credit cards. As a result, the clients ended up with overdue card payments and loans, and their credit ratings deteriorated. Eventually, in order to secure their claims for the unpaid wages and severance pay, the clients applied to the court for a provisional attachment of claims. However, the court issued an order to provide security, including a cash deposit, creating a new burden.
2. Key Issues and Response
The core issue was that the order to provide security for the provisional attachment application required a cash deposit, which could in turn impose yet another financial burden on the young workers, who were already economically vulnerable. Taking the creditors' economic reality into account, Your Legal Team developed the following arguments in an opinion submitted regarding the order to provide security.
First, we emphasized that the creditors were not mere monetary creditors but victims who had not been paid the rightful compensation for their legitimate labor. Second, we pointed out that the debtor company had exploited the workers' credit under the guise of operating expenses while evading proper payment. Third, we substantiated, using specific records of card charges and arrears, the fact that this situation had effectively left the creditors unable even to maintain their livelihoods.
On this basis, Your Legal Team submitted an opinion requesting that the court extend the performance period of the order to provide security and, in addition, allow the full amount to be substituted with a payment guarantee entrustment contract rather than a cash deposit.
3. Result and Significance
The court accepted the arguments of Law Firm Insight and newly issued a decision changing the order to provide security, which had originally required a cash deposit, so that the full amount could be submitted by way of a payment guarantee entrustment contract. This enabled the clients to proceed with the provisional attachment procedure without an additional cash burden, which also had a positive effect on the protection of their claims in any subsequent principal lawsuit or unpaid-wage complaint procedure. This case is a representative example in which a strategic response that substantively took the client's economic circumstances into account-beyond mere legal technique-led to a tangible result. In particular, the fact that the court changed the form of security in consideration of the creditors' livelihood situation and the nature of the claim (a wage claim) can serve as an important practical precedent in similar cases.