1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties were on December 1, 2014 when serving in C, the representative of B, retired on December 1, 2014.

(Appointedrs D retired on September 1, 2014, and Selection E retired on November 1, 2014).

Plaintiff

B on December 2, 2014, the designated parties received the money listed in attached Table 1 for repayment of overdue wages, etc. from B.

(hereinafter “instant reimbursement”) C.

On June 29, 2015, the Defendant applied for the confirmation of facts, such as bankruptcy, with respect to C, and the Plaintiff and the designated parties applied for the confirmation of substitute payment to the Defendant on July 9, 2015.

On August 3, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff and the designated parties of the confirmation of substitute payment calculated on the premise that the above amount received from the Plaintiff and the designated parties B was paid to the Plaintiff and the designated parties for the last three months’ overdue wages and the retirement allowance obligations for the last three years’ retirement allowances.

(See Attached Form 1). (e)

Plaintiff

On October 2, 2015, the designated parties filed an administrative appeal with the Central Administrative Appeals Commission for the cancellation of the notification of confirmation of the substitute payment, which was calculated by the Defendant as a result of statutory satisfaction of payment, on the ground that the payment was made by the Defendant at the time of the instant reimbursement, but was dismissed on April 5, 2016.

[On the other hand, Gap evidence No. 1 written judgment is indicated as the plaintiff only as the party, but according to Gap evidence No. 4-1 (written application for administrative appeal), the purport of the above administrative appeal is to revoke the defendant's rejection of substitute payment made by the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and it is stated that the worker whose employment relationship is terminated due to the closure of Eul and the retired worker were selected as the plaintiff as the representative of the worker, and it is deemed that there was a copy of the worker's representative selection consent, and it is reasonable to see that the designated party had undergone an administrative appeal just as the plaintiff). [The fact that there is no dispute, and there are evidence No. 1 through 3.