1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. From December 12, 2011 to November 30, 2015, the Defendant, in arrears with the Defendant’s wages, operated C Research Institute on the second floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building B, and the Defendant’s employees, paid KRW 22,405,145, and the Defendant’s total of KRW 7,601,45, and KRW 30,006,601,601, which are the Defendant’s employees.

B. The plaintiff's substitute payment details is the plaintiff.

A. The above provisions under Article 7 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act upon the worker's claim for overdue wages stated in the paragraph.

Of the unpaid wages and retirement allowances as stated in the Paragraph, Article 38(2) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 12(2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, the wages for the last three months and the retirement allowances for three years, which are the top priority payment right under Article 12(2) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, paid a substitute payment of total of KRW 22,64,200 on behalf of the defendant who is the business owner, six occasions as follows, and recover KRW 50,000 among them.

C. On June 14, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for individual rehabilitation and filed an application for commencement of the individual rehabilitation procedure on February 8, 2017 (Seoul Rehabilitation Court 2016da67475), and the Plaintiff filed an application for commencement of the individual rehabilitation procedure on May 26, 2017.

The report of the priority claim on the substitute payment stated in the paragraph was submitted, and the defendant submitted a list of creditors and a draft repayment plan stating the plaintiff's above substitute payment claim as individual rehabilitation claims, and it was decided to authorize the repayment plan on September 8, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 3, Evidence No. 1 to 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim for substitute payment was submitted in the individual rehabilitation procedure as the list of creditors indicated as rehabilitation claims and the claim is confirmed as stated therein.

Therefore, the Health House and the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”) are applicable only to the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act.