1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why this court should explain the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s assertion medical foundation directeds and supervisess the dispatched major and had them work at the Posin Hospital operated by it, and that the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment from the Masin Medical Foundation was set at an amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s payment paid to the major residents, the essence of the claim for the payment of the payment of the instant case constitutes a public-interest claim (the debtor’s wage) under Article 179(1)10 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”), which constitutes a major’s wage claim against the Masin Medical Foundation, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay it to the Plaintiff regardless of the rehabilitation procedure.

B. The judgment does not bear the obligation of the Defendant to pay wages directly to the labor manpower. However, where the Defendant was obligated to pay the service expenses to the Plaintiff who supplied the labor manpower, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant constitutes a rehabilitation claim.

(2) In full view of the following circumstances, the payment claims in the instant case cannot be deemed as a priority claim under Article 179(1)10 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, and rather, it is reasonable to view that the payment claims in full constituted a rehabilitation claim arising from a cause that occurred before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, based on the following circumstances, based on the respective descriptions and the entire purport of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 2 as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1, 2012 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

(1) The Debtor Rehabilitation Act prohibits any employee from exercising or repaying any individual rehabilitation claim that is in the course of rehabilitation procedures in principle, in order to achieve the purpose of rehabilitation procedures through the reorganization and re-approval of the debtor's business: