A. The Plaintiff paid a substitute payment of KRW 457,86,820, which is part of the wages for the last three months and the retirement allowances for the last three months to 39 employees of N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “N”), and in the case of a compulsory auction of real estate in Chuncheon District Court’s Seocho-gu L/C which is proceeding with the N-owned real estate, 27 of the said workers (hereinafter “27 employees, such asO”) is the wage obligee who was partially paid the substitute payment, and the Defendants, the Defendant’s designated parties, and the designated parties M (hereinafter “Defendants”) were the wage obligee who was not paid the substitute payment, and the Plaintiff participated in the distribution as the subrogated creditor under Article 8 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act.

B. On April 1, 2013, the aforementioned court prepared a distribution schedule stating that KRW 27,576,563 of the actual amount to be distributed in the order of priority among the 27 persons includingO and the Defendants on the date of distribution, and the amount to be distributed in the corresponding amount indicated in the “amount to be distributed” column of the attached Table (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”), and the Plaintiff was excluded from the distribution of dividends.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution, and raised an objection as stated in the purport of the claim, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the distribution of this case within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendants who were subrogated creditors who paid substitute payments to the Plaintiff workers and did not receive substitute payments are identical in the legal nature of the relevant claims, so they should be distributed in the same order.

B. An employee who did not receive a substitute payment from the Defendants is entitled to receive the same substitute payment in preference to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In a case where a person who has a legitimate interest in repayment of priority has subrogated for a part of the secured obligation on behalf of the debtor, the subrogated person has had the previous creditor to the extent of the value of performance.