A. There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, it is recognized that the fact of bankruptcy, etc. was recognized by the Central Employment and Labor Agency on February 21, 2012 against the Defendant, a company established for the purpose of an engineering work, etc., and that the Plaintiff, who was entrusted with duties by the Minister of Employment and Labor on May 11, 2012, on behalf of the Defendant, paid a substitute payment of KRW 36,186,010 in total with wages and retirement allowances for the last three months, which were not paid by the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant pursuant to Article 7 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, paid substitute payment of KRW 36,186,010, to workers on behalf of the Defendant, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by applying the rate of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 11, 2012 to February 13, 2015, which is the delivery date of payment order, to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff subrogated to the right of workers to claim the unpaid wages, etc. to the Defendant within the scope of the amount paid, pursuant to Article 8 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since it had no property or economic ability at all times due to the bankruptcy of several years before the year, but this is not a legal basis for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim. Therefore, the above assertion is rejected.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.