A. On April 1, 2008, the Plaintiff entered a stock company B (hereinafter “B”) and retired on November 1, 2016, and registered as a director in-house B from March 26, 2010 until the retirement.

B. B filed an application for rehabilitation with the Cheongju District Court 2016 Gohap5008, and the rehabilitation court appointed the Defendant, who was the representative director B, as the manager upon the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure on August 11, 2016.

C. The Plaintiff was not paid KRW 24,694,075 in total, and KRW 41,142,663 in retirement allowances and KRW 5,328,648 in total, from April 2, 2016 to October 2016.

However, in the above rehabilitation procedure, only the Plaintiff’s wage and retirement allowance of 67,814,320 won were classified as rehabilitation claims, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto.

After all, on April 24, 2017, the rehabilitation court recognized the rehabilitation claim against the plaintiff as KRW 57,814,320 and decided to authorize the rehabilitation plan including the contents of the repayment of KRW 7,226,790 after the alteration of the right.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 7, 9, Eul evidence 1 to 3 and 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion was registered as the inside director of B, but it was for the convenience of the company. The plaintiff actually constitutes a worker who performed the pertinent business in a subordinate relationship with the defendant's instructions.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s unpaid 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 such unpaid wage and other claims to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff's claim is a rehabilitation claim because it is not a real worker who was in the employment-subsidiary relationship as the inside director of B.

Rehabilitation claims shall not be repaid without resorting to the rehabilitation procedure, and Articles 251, 252 and 255 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act shall be applicable.