1. The appeal by the Defendants and the Defendant (Appointed Party) is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are the defendants and the defendants.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is 3.7% of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

In addition to the order of priority as follows, the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance.

A. In the event that the Plaintiff pays part of the wages and retirement allowances, which are the top priority repayment right, to a certain employee pursuant to the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Act No. 13047, Jan. 20, 2015), as a substitute payment, and exercises the right to wages, etc. of the relevant employee, the claims subrogated by the Plaintiff shall be paid in the same order as those of other workers who are not given a substitute payment, such as wages, which are the top priority repayment right of other workers who are not given a substitute payment. The Plaintiff’s subrogated claims cannot be deemed to have been paid in the lower order than those of other workers who have not received a substitute payment, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff’s subrogated claims have the public interest nature for the stabilization of workers’ livelihood (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da208378, Nov. 27, 2015). Accordingly, the claims subrogated by the Plaintiff and the Defendants should be treated in the

2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the appeal by the Defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.