1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

According to the evidence Nos. 1-1 through 9 of the evidence No. 1-1 to the evidence No. 9, it may be recognized as the same facts as the statement of 1., 2., and 3. of the Reasons for Claim No. 1.

According to the facts of recognition, unless there are special circumstances, the plaintiff can make a claim against the defendant for denial.

Whether such special circumstances exist and the legitimacy of the defendant's defense is examined below.

Even if an act subject to avoidance in bankruptcy proceedings is harmful to bankruptcy creditors, such act is socially necessary and reasonable in accordance with individual and specific circumstances at the time of the act.

There may be cases where it is deemed that the general bankruptcy creditor should bear the reduction of the bankruptcy estate or the unfair treatment of the bankruptcy estate.

In light of the guiding ideology or the concept of justice of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act, such as equality of creditors, protection of the debtor and coordination of the interests in bankruptcy, it is not subject to the exercise of avoidance power in such exceptional cases.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 30, the defendant could have paid wages to his employees in the virtue that the non-party company paid out of the act in this case by the non-party company to the defendant. The non-party company disguised in itself with an intra-company subcontract in order to avoid the employer's liability. In fact, the defendant was in a position not different from the employee of the non-party company due to the reason that the non-party company was working for the non-party company at the non-party company's workplace, and used the name of the non-party production team leader (21) in the non-party company's workplace. The defendant completed the product by providing a new labor to the non-party company when the non-party company had already been in capital erosion, and thereby the obligation to the defendant of the non-party company arises.