1. On October 26, 2016, the Defendant’s decision to pay a small-sum substitute payment to the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 5, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a “written confirmation of delayed wage, etc. and business owner” by the head of the Busan Regional Employment and Labor Agency on July 11, 2016, after the Plaintiff retired on March 5, 2016, while working as an employee in Suwon-gu, Busan (the de facto representative: D, the nominal representative: D, and the E (D’s father’s wife).

B. On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an order to pay KRW 2.3 million with the Busan District Court Branch D and E, and filed an application for payment order with the Plaintiff on September 9, 2016, that “D and E jointly pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2.3 million and damages for delay from March 1, 2016 to the date of full payment.” The said payment order became final and conclusive on October 18, 2016.

C. On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the amount of KRW 2,300,000 as substitute payment, but the Defendant, on October 26, 2016, rendered a decision on site payment on the ground that “In the case of receiving a small substitute payment, it shall be premised that the relevant employee would have worked at the applicable workplace of the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, and where the company has operated its business for at least six months until the retirement date of the relevant employee, the Plaintiff is confirmed to have worked for at least six months from October 10, 2015 to March 5, 2016 as the employee belonging to C and the overdue wage is confirmed, but the business operation period from September 22, 2015 to March 5, 2016, which is the date of the commencement of the business, does not meet the requirements of the business owner.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the lawfulness of the instant disposition

A. Although the starting date of business is indicated on September 22, 2015 on the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the business is indicated on the basis of the business owner’s written confirmation, such as delayed payment of wages, etc., in fact, when the business owner of C starts his/her business, he/she registered his/her business. The Plaintiff provided his/her labor to C in August 5, 2015, and the unpaid wages from the employee of the business owner on August 28, 2015.