1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 17, 2012, the amount distributed to F Co., Ltd. on August 17, 2012 from G, G, and H’s land and five lots of land and five buildings, G, and H’s land and five buildings (hereinafter “instant deposit”) deposited as Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2012No3434 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

B. The Plaintiff, based on the executory exemplification of the conciliation protocol in the Seoul Eastern District Court 2009Gahap16733, filed an application for the attachment and collection order against the F Co., Ltd., under the Suwon District Court 2012 Sung-nam Branch 14281, and on November 21, 2012, the above court issued the attachment and collection order for the claim amounting to KRW 160,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000 won as the debtor, and around that time, issued the above claim attachment and collection order to the third debtor.

C. In the distribution procedure for the instant deposit (U.S. District Court Sung-nam Branch E), the executing court drafted a distribution schedule on August 22, 2014 (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”). The said distribution schedule states that the selected parties A shall distribute a total of KRW 51,831,008 (including KRW 11,486,621, and KRW 3,820,790 among the appointed parties).

On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the dividend amount of the Defendants, A, and C, and filed the instant lawsuit on August 27, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The parties’ assertion is that Defendant B has 30% of the shares of F Co., Ltd. and actually operates the above company. Defendant D has 50% of the shares of F Co., Ltd. and is an auditor of the above company. Thus, the Defendants do not constitute an employee subject to the Labor Standards Act.

Therefore, under the premise that the Defendants are the employees of FF, the Defendants.