A. On September 6, 2010, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring establishment with respect to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) owned by E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) as indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On November 3, 2016, Ansan-si completed the attachment registration of each of the instant real estate on the grounds that the instant company failed to pay local taxes, and ordered the Defendant to sell each of the instant real estate by public auction, transfer of rights and distribute sales proceeds therefrom.

C. On July 14, 2017, the Defendant sold each of the instant real estate. On August 23, 2017, the Defendant distributed KRW 2,725,257,610, total sum of the sales proceeds and deposited interest on each of the instant real estate, as indicated in attached Table 2, and revised the amount of “D (Appointed Party)” and the Plaintiff’s distributed amount, as shown in attached Table 2, on November 9, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant disposition”). On the other hand, the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) requested the distribution of wage claims to the designated parties to “D (Appointeds)” during the above public auction procedure, and was allocated KRW 28,113,52 to the Intervenor A, and KRW 23,72,552 to the Intervenor B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the legitimacy of the disposition

A. The Intervenor’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s claim is an internal director of the instant company, and his remuneration claim is not deemed as a wage claim with preferential payment right under Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act.

Therefore, the allocation disposition against the Intervenor during the instant disposition should be revoked.

(b) Attached Form 3 of the relevant statutes;

C. Whether a worker is subject to the relevant legal doctrine is an employer regardless of the form of contract, in substance, for the purpose of wages.