The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff worked as a standing adviser at the Defendant Company from October 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017.

B. On October 12, 2017, the Defendant Company received a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures from the Seoul Bankruptcy Court to grant authorization for the rehabilitation plan on May 24, 2018, and on June 25, 2018, the rehabilitation procedure was completed (Seoul Bankruptcy Court 100149 meetings 2017; hereinafter “instant rehabilitation procedure”).

In the rehabilitation procedure of this case, the administrator of the Defendant Company reported the Plaintiff’s remuneration claim as rehabilitation claim from September 2017 and October 1, 2017 to October 11, 2017. The above claim was finalized and approved as rehabilitation plan, and the Plaintiff received KRW 1,192,549 from the administrator and received KRW 7,952,612 from the manager and paid KRW 1,952,612.

【Uncontentious facts, entry in the evidence Nos. 1, 5, 7, and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion constitutes a worker under the Labor Standards Act who provided labor for the purpose of wages in the defendant company while engaging in overseas business.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s wage and retirement allowance claims against the Defendant Company are public-interest claims under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Liability Rehabilitation Act”), the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unpaid wages (from September 2017 to December 201), totaling KRW 30,000,000, and retirement allowance totaling KRW 29,250,000, and delayed damages.

2) The Defendant’s assertion is merely an employee who performs his duties as an employee of the Defendant Company and received remuneration, and cannot be viewed as a worker under the Labor Standards Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's unpaid wages and retirement allowance claims that the plaintiff sought against the defendant constitute rehabilitation claims under the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, as the officer's remuneration claims. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is without merit.

(b) An officer, such as a director, auditor, etc. of a stock company, is delegated by the company to conduct certain business affairs.