1. The Cheongju District Court prepared on November 23, 2016 with respect to the Cheongju District Court B real estate auction case B.

Basic Facts

The Industrial Bank of Korea extended a loan to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”). On October 14, 2013, the Industrial Bank of Korea completed the registration of establishment of a mortgage over the first priority of 1.8 billion won with respect to the real estate owned by the instant company, including the D land, E land, F land, G land, and the second unit, etc. of the steel frame frame and its ground, in order to secure the above loan claims.

As the instant company did not pay the above loans, on November 26, 2013, the Industrial Bank of Korea was granted a decision to commence the auction procedure following the said decision to commence the auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) on November 26, 2013, based on the said right to collateral security.

On June 26, 2014, the Plaintiff finally acquired the claim for the above-mortgage loans, and on June 27, 2014, notified the instant company of the assignment of claims.

The 34 employees of the instant company (including Defendant A, and 1-35 workers Nos. 1-35 of the attached Table 1-35, H 16, 17) selected Defendant A as the designated party by asserting that they did not receive wages and retirement allowances from the instant company, and filed an application for demand for distribution against KRW 517,469,272 in total, including wages and retirement allowances, as shown in attached Table 1, with the court of auction on August 26, 2014.

Detailed details of the above wages and retirement allowances are as shown in attached Table 2.

On August 29, 2014, the auction court designated the demand period of distribution.

On the other hand, as to the instant company on December 24, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court 2013 Ma258 decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings, and the Defendant Labor Welfare Corporation paid 349,028,550 won in total to 40 employees of the instant company on June 25, 2014, pursuant to Article 7(1)1 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (where a decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings has been made), as shown in attached Table 3.

34 out of 40 workers of the company of this case who received the above substitute payment, shall be the above-mentioned claim for wages and retirement allowances.