A. A. ABD Asia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor”) is a company engaging in the manufacture and sale of automobile and industrial distribution business, etc., and the Plaintiff was employed by the debtor company on January 1, 201, and retired on November 30, 201, while serving as the environmental safety manager of the facility management team.

B. The Plaintiff was unable to receive wages and retirement allowances of KRW 19,535,746 of the wages in 2013, KRW 437,640 of the wage in February 2014, KRW 2,663,860 of the wage in April 2014, KRW 2,663,860 of the wage in May 2, 2014, KRW 2,739,120 of the wage in June 2, 2014, KRW 2,726,680 of the wage in September 2, 2014, and KRW 2,480, KRW 200 of the wage in November 2, 2014, KRW 12,45,640 of the retirement allowance in total, KRW 45,854,576 of the wage in total, and KRW 576 of the wage in total.

C. On May 21, 2015, the debtor company was decided to commence rehabilitation procedures by the Gwangju District Court 2015 Mahap5004, and the Defendants were appointed as joint managers.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 2-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of 45,854,576 won and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from December 15, 2014 to the date of full payment, 14 days after the retirement of the Plaintiff.

3. On the determination of the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted to the effect that it is reasonable to suspend the instant lawsuit pursuant to Article 59(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”), since the debtor company is undergoing rehabilitation procedures upon receiving a decision of commencement of rehabilitation. However, the Plaintiff’s instant claim is based on the employee’s wage and retirement allowance, i.e., public-interest claim, and shall be repaid from time to time without undergoing rehabilitation procedures (Articles 179(1)10 and 180(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act). Thus, the Defendants’ claim is based on different premise.