1. The defendant has a column for the amount of award in the annexed sheet by the selected parties, including the plaintiff (appointed parties).

1. Basic facts

A. The designated parties, including the Plaintiff (Appointeds), (hereinafter “designated parties”), under employment of the Defendant, provided the Defendant with labor during the period indicated in the service period column of the cited amount list by the annexed appointing parties.

B. The Defendant did not pay part of the wages to the designated parties from December 2014 to February 2015, as shown in the prize amount list by the designated parties, and the unpaid wages to the designated parties are as indicated in the form of the cited amount list by the designated parties.

[Grounds for Recognition] Article 150 (3) and the main sentence of Article 150 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1), the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Appointors the amount of money in the form of the cited amount in the annexed sheet by the Appointors, and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum per annum under Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act from March 15, 2015 to the date of full payment, after the expiration of 14 days from February 28, 2015, which was the last day after the Appointors provided labor.

3. According to the conclusion, the claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

B, on July 2, 2015, through a written application for the request for the resumption of proceedings filed by the Defendant on June 22, 2015, filed an application for the resumption of pleadings and the acceptance of proceedings, asserting that the Defendant was decided to commence the rehabilitation proceedings in the Changwon District Court 2015 Gohap1024, and that B was appointed as a custodian.

However, the decision to commence the rehabilitation procedure against the defendant was made after the closing of the argument in this case, and a comprehensive prohibition order was issued against the defendant, which prohibits compulsory execution, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, or auction procedure for the exercise of security right, and there was no order to suspend the litigation procedure issued. Thus, the court has resumed the instant case and issued such suspension order. Thus, the rehabilitation debtor, corporation, etc., the successor after the closing of the argument in this case.