1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor pursuant to Articles 7, 8, and 27 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act and, in cases where the employer falls under the causes prescribed by the Presidential Decree, such as bankruptcy, if the retired employee requests the Minister of Employment and Labor to pay the unpaid wages and retirement allowances (hereinafter “repaid payment”), the employer shall pay on behalf of the employer the unpaid wages and retirement allowances on behalf of the employer, and the employer shall exercise on behalf of the employer the right to claim wages and retirement allowances on behalf of the employee, and the Defendants (excluding Defendant H, I, J, K, L, M, N, and P) shall have worked for Q (hereinafter “instant company”).

Defendant H, I, J, and K are the successors of R who worked for the instant company, and Defendant L, M, N, andO are the successors of S who worked for the instant company.

B. On June 24, 2005, T, an employee of the instant company, filed an application with the Busan Regional Labor Agency for recognition of bankruptcy, etc. of the said company, and recognized it on July 25, 2005. Accordingly, the Defendants, an employee of the instant company, applied for payment of unpaid wages, etc. to the Plaintiff pursuant to the Wage Claim Guarantee Act.

Accordingly, on August 12, 2005, the Plaintiff paid the Defendants the amount of money indicated in the attached Form, which is part of the unpaid wages and retirement allowances, on behalf of the instant company.

C. On October 12, 2007, the head of Busan Regional Labor Agency discontinued the company of this case in order to receive substitute payment by U, T, and V, who is the actual business owner of the company of this case. The head of Busan Regional Labor Agency notified the cancellation of confirmation of the requirements for substitute payment on the ground that he received substitute payment by adding false workers to the list of workers of this case. On October 29, 2007, the plaintiff is a worker of this case including the defendants, on the ground that all 104 employees belonging to the company of this case were paid substitute payment by fraudulent or other illegal means.