In around 2011, the Plaintiffs filed an application for confirmation of the fact of substitute payment with the head of the Seoul Western Labor District Office, claiming that they were not paid wages, etc., as an employee retired from the Korea Labor District Office (hereinafter referred to as the “Korea Labor District Office”).

Accordingly, the head of the Seoul Western Employment District Office notified the Plaintiffs of the confirmation of substitute payment pursuant to Article 7 of the former Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Act No. 12528, Mar. 24, 2014) and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26138, Jun. 15, 2015) on September 201. The Plaintiffs received substitute payment payment from the Defendant Labor Welfare Corporation based on the confirmation of such substitute payment.

Around February 2013, the head of the Seoul Western Labor District Office notified the Plaintiffs of the cancellation of the confirmation of substitute payment as shown in the attached Form 1 (hereinafter “disposition of cancellation of the confirmation of the fact of the case”), and on March 6, 2013, the Defendant Korea Labor Welfare Corporation notified the Plaintiffs of the payment for additional collection equivalent to the amount of the substitute payment already paid as shown in the attached Form 2, on the ground that the Plaintiffs had not worked in the friendly Design but received substitute payment by falsely submitting the work log, details of passbook, etc. (hereinafter “the notification of cancellation of the confirmation of the case”).

(hereinafter “Disposition of Return of Substitute Payment and Additional Collection” / (hereinafter “Disposition of Return of Substitute Payment and Disposition of Additional Collection”) asserts that there is no dispute, that the lawsuit brought by the Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff P, T, and Y is unlawful on the ground that the lawsuit brought by the Defendants was brought by the Administrator of Seoul Western Employment and Labor Branch on the grounds that the lawsuit brought under Plaintiff A, H, M, and X was brought by a person without the power of attorney.

The case shall be accompanied by the letter of delegation of the lawsuit submitted by the attorney-at-law to the warden.