임금 등
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Among the instant lawsuits, from December 15, 2016 to September 28, 2017.
Based on the facts, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on July 1, 2008, and worked for the Defendant Company, and retired on November 30, 2016, and registered as the director or internal director of the Defendant Company from June 27, 2008 to November 30, 2016.
The Plaintiff did not receive retirement allowances of KRW 45,983,32 in total from the Defendant Company from December 1, 2015 to November 30, 2016, and retirement allowances of KRW 7,66,663 in total for the period of continuous service of the year immediately preceding the Plaintiff’s retirement (from December 1, 2015 to November 30, 2016) and KRW 53,649,95 in total.
On September 28, 2017, the Seoul Rehabilitation Court appointed C (hereinafter “Defendant”) as the manager of the Defendant Company, who served as the representative director of the Defendant Company while commencing rehabilitation proceedings by 2017 Mahap100158.
【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff alleged to have been registered as a director of the Defendant Company, but actually performed the duties of the Defendant Company in a subordinate relationship as an employee of the Defendant Company.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s wage and other claims constitute public-interest claims under Article 179(1)10 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay them to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was a shareholder holding 10% of the shares issued by the Defendant Company and a senior managing director (in-house director) of the technical part of the Defendant Company, and was actually involved in the management of the Defendant Company and was responsible for the management deterioration of the Defendant Company. In 2014 and 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a letter of undertaking to waive retirement pay.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is not a worker of the defendant company, and the rehabilitation claim is a rehabilitation claim, and the rehabilitation claim cannot be repaid without resorting to the rehabilitation procedure.
The Plaintiff.