1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,860,990 for the Plaintiff, and its annual rate from May 8, 2013 to May 7, 2015, and the next day.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the determination on the cause of the claim, or in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the defendant operated a family manufacturing company with the trade name “B”, and recognized the fact of bankruptcy, etc. against the above workplace from the head of the Incheon Northern District Office of the Central Employment and Labor Agency on April 26, 2013, and the plaintiff entrusted with the business by the Minister of Employment and Labor on May 8, 2013 pursuant to Article 7 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act on behalf of the defendant on behalf of the defendant, paid a substitute payment of KRW 80,860,90 in total with the wages and retirement allowances for the last three months which were not paid to 16 employees, including C, who are employees belonging to the defendant

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff, on behalf of the Defendant, paid 80,860,990 won for substitute payment to workers, on behalf of the Defendant, is liable to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by applying each ratio of 20% per annum under the Commercial Act from May 8, 2013 to May 7, 2015, which is the delivery date of payment order, to the service date of payment order, since the Plaintiff subrogated to the right of workers to claim the unpaid wages, etc. to the Defendant within the scope of the amount paid pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the individual rehabilitation procedure was initiated and initiated by the Incheon District Court 2013da21240. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant's claim was included in the list of creditors of the individual rehabilitation case. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit without further review.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.