1. A dividend table prepared on March 15, 2017 by this court with respect to the auction cases of real estate A in the Suwon District Court Suwon District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In the Suwon District Court case of D’s auction of real estate D’s land for factory, etc., the Suwon District Court reported the principal amount of KRW 126,115,244, interest rate of KRW 24,013,723, total of KRW 150,128,967 to C as wage creditors of the company C.

B. On March 15, 2017, the above court made a distribution schedule to B (the Defendant with the right to collect) on the amount of 8,099,99,99, totaling KRW 7,591,034, totaling KRW 15,691,033, which is the retirement pay for the last three months, and to distribute the remainder of KRW 1,005,950,850 to the Plaintiff who is the right to collateral security.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that, although Eul is not a worker of the corporation C, and there was no priority wage claim against Eul, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant should pay all the amount distributed to the defendant to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that Eul has the priority wage claim to the worker of the corporation C.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the burden of proof, the burden of proof as to the grounds for objection against distribution is in accordance with the principle of distribution of the burden of proof in general civil procedure, and thus, the plaintiff who filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution

In the event that the claim is disputed, the defendant shall bear the burden of proving the cause of the claim.

Therefore, in this case, the defendant is responsible for proving that he is a worker B.

B. The following circumstances, i.e., B and E, the representative director of C, and written labor contract with C, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to whether B was a worker of C, the absence of any dispute, the entry of the evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and the witness testimony of the witness B, and the following circumstances, namely, B and E, the representative director of C, and there is no written labor contract with C.