1. On March 28, 2013, the Defendant’s disposition of non-recognition of bankruptcy, etc. against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. B (hereinafter “B”) is a company established on April 21, 2010 with the purpose of purchasing and selling bonds, managing assets, and recovering non-performing loans, etc.

B. On March 28, 2011, C substantially operated C established D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) that is a company with the purpose of credit transaction, collection, credit business, etc. (the officer was appointed by inside director E and auditor) and the Plaintiff served as the head of the sales team team in the Nonparty Company.

C. On or after the end of June 201, Nonparty Company discontinued its business activities and discontinued its business on September 8, 2011.

On June 15, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for recognition of bankruptcy, etc. against the non-party company.

E. However, on March 28, 2013, the Defendant issued a notice of non-recognition of bankruptcy, etc. (hereinafter “instant disposition”) to the Plaintiff on the ground that “the company outside the lawsuit shall not be deemed to have engaged in the pertinent business for more than six months from the date of establishment of the place of business,” pursuant to Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25630, Sep. 25, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act”), and Article 4 of the Enforcement Rule of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (hereinafter “Enforcement Rule of the Forestry Claim Guarantee Act”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-2, 3, Gap evidence 4, and 5, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s instant disposition is unlawful for the following reasons.

1) Whether to recognize the fact of bankruptcy, etc. shall be determined depending on whether the requirements under Article 5(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Trust Business Act are met, and it cannot be determined based on whether the requirements of business owner under Article 8 of the same Decree are met. 2) Since the non-party company is converted into a corporation that has been operated as a branch of B, it shall be deemed that the non-party company, as a branch of B, employs workers including the plaintiff, and starts up from