1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a game development and service company.

B. On March 27, 2009, Plaintiff A was appointed as an internal director and served as the head of the Development Technology Headquarters.

July 18, 2014.

Plaintiff

B is appointed as an internal director on March 27, 2009 and works as the head of the overseas business headquarters.

July 31, 2014.

B. On November 15, 2013, the Defendant received a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures by Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ma218, and obtained the rehabilitation plan approval on October 7, 2014, and completed rehabilitation procedures on November 28, 2014.

C. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiffs do not constitute a public-interest claim under Article 179 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, not an employee under the Labor Standards Act, and did not pay the Plaintiffs’ wages, etc. after the end of October, 2013 as stated in the claim.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Eul No. 1, 10, and 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 179(1)10 of the Act on the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy of Issues stipulates that wages, retirement allowances, and accident compensation for the debtor's employees shall be regarded as public-interest claims.

The plaintiffs sought wages and retirement allowances from the defendant on the premise that they are the workers of the defendant, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' claims are groundless since they are not registered workers under the Labor Standards Act.

3. Determination

A. An officer, such as a director, who has an executive authority of a company, is delegated to handle certain affairs by the company even if he/she is not a shareholder of the company. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the officer is not an employee under the employer’s direction and supervision, providing certain labor, and receiving prescribed wages, and thus,

(Supreme Court Decision 92Da28228 delivered on December 22, 1992). B.

Judgment

1 In-house directors, there is evidence that the plaintiffs who are in-house directors provide certain labor and receive prescribed wages.