1. The Defendant’s refusal to pay each substitute payment against Plaintiff A and B on September 30, 2014, and Plaintiff C on October 14, 2014.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) was established on March 9, 199 and engaged in soil construction business, etc., and was declared bankrupt on May 7, 2014 by this Court No. 2013Hahap54.

B. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs requested the Defendant to verify the eligibility for substitute payment on the ground that the Defendant was not paid wages and retirement allowances from the instant company.

C. On the grounds that “the Plaintiff is registered as a director or auditor on the corporate register of the instant company, and does not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act, such as holding the shares of the instant company,” the Defendant rendered a non-conformity disposition against Plaintiff A and B on September 30, 2014, and on October 14, 2014, with respect to Plaintiff C, each of the instant dispositions subject to substitute payment (hereinafter “each of the instant dispositions”).

The plaintiffs filed an administrative appeal seeking revocation of each of the dispositions of this case, but the Central Administrative Appeals Commission dismissed all the plaintiffs' appeals on July 14, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether each of the dispositions of this case is legitimate

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they were registered as directors or auditors on the corporate register of the company of this case, and held the shares of the company of this case on the corporate register of the company of this case. However, at the request of the representative E of the company of this case, they merely lent the name in form, and the plaintiffs do not act as the officers of the company of this case or exercise their authority as shareholders

The Plaintiffs, like other employees, worked daily to work and were under the direction and supervision of the representative director, and received the benefits determined by the company in return, thereby constituting workers under the Labor Standards Act.

Each of the dispositions of this case made on different premise is unlawful.

(b) annex relevant laws and regulations;