A. On May 1, 2014, the Defendant, a company running a reinforced concrete construction business, was practically discontinued due to the detention of business owners on May 1, 2014. Accordingly, the head of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Office rendered a recognition of the fact that the Defendant was unable to pay unpaid wages, etc. on June 30, 2014.

B. Under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, the Plaintiff paid a substitute payment of KRW 10,571,470, and KRW 29,40,430, August 20, 2014, on behalf of the employer, to four (4), including B, etc., retired as the Defendant’s employee, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 39,976,900 in substitute payment (i.e., KRW 10,571,470 in total) and KRW 10,571,470 in total and KRW 10,571,470 in subrogation of the right to claim unpaid wages, etc. from August 6, 2014, which is the payment date of the substitute payment, to KRW 29,405,430 in total, from August 20, 2014, which is the payment date of the substitute payment, to December 15, 2014, which is the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of each case, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from August 20, 2014, and damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum as stipulated under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

3. The defendant's representative director C is only registered as the representative director under the defendant's name, and the actual business owner claims D. However, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant is not against the representative director, but against the defendant. Thus, the above claim does not constitute a ground to block the plaintiff's claim.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.