1. The Defendant: KRW 33,508,241 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 21, 2015 to December 21, 2015; and

1. Basic facts

A. A rehabilitation company B (hereinafter “B”) is a company that produces the right of Gak Unit used in flat display, which is a liquid display device used in TV, monitor, etc.

B. B, upon filing an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Daejeon District Court 2015 Gohap5025, received a decision on August 20, 2015, and the Defendant was appointed as a custodian on the same day.

C. On December 1, 2010, the Plaintiff, through the head of the business division in charge of financing, accounting, and computer affairs, was promoted to the regular director around 2013 and performed the same duties.

The Plaintiff retired on September 30, 2015. D.

In the above rehabilitation procedure, the defendant stated the plaintiff's retirement allowance in the rehabilitation claim list and refused to pay it.

E. The Plaintiff’s retirement allowance is KRW 35,624,981, and the actual payment after deducting the income tax and resident tax withheld is KRW 33,508,241.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 evidence, Eul 1-1 and 2-1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance claim constitutes a priority claim under Article 179(1)10 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”).

The defendant shall pay retirement allowances and delay damages to the plaintiff in accordance with the Labor Standards Act.

B. The Plaintiff cannot be deemed as an employee under the Labor Standards Act upon delegation of independent work from B as a CFO responsible for the overall management support.

3. Determination under Article 179(1)10 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides for wages and retirement allowances for employees of the rehabilitation company as priority claims, and the aforementioned “worker” refers to an employee under the Labor Standards Act.

We examine whether the Plaintiff constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

Whether or not a worker is subject to the Labor Standards Act is dependent on wages in substance regardless of the form of contract.