1. The Defendant: (a) 6% per annum from August 30, 2016 to October 30, 2019; and (b) 31 October 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a government-funded institution that conducts the business of paying unpaid wages, etc. on behalf of an employer in cases where a retired worker under Article 7 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act was not paid wages, etc. due to the reasons prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as the employer's bankruptcy.

B. A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”) filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with the Gwangju District Court 2015 Gohap5038 on November 23, 2015, as a company that manufactures and repairs marine leisure equipment, constructs and repairs steel vessels, etc.

On February 29, 2016, the court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures against A and appointed the defendant as a custodian. However, on February 21, 2017, the court abolished the rehabilitation procedures against A as the rehabilitation plan was rejected at the meeting of interested persons for the resolution of the rehabilitation plan.

C. On June 12, 2017, A filed an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures again with the Gwangju District Court 2017 Gohap5012.

On August 24, 2017, the court decided to commence rehabilitation procedures against A, appointed the defendant as a custodian on the same day, and approved the rehabilitation plan submitted by the defendant on January 3, 2018.

A is currently under rehabilitation proceedings. D.

From August 4, 2015 to August 30, 2016, the Defendant paid KRW 289,119,730 in total to 38 workers, including C, etc. who were workers A, for the last three months’ wages and retirement allowances for the last three years’ wages pursuant to Article 7 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, and recovered KRW 3,00,000,000 paid by mistake on May 20, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment is based on the facts that the Plaintiff paid a substitute payment to 38 workers, such as C on behalf of A, etc., as seen earlier. As such, 38 persons, such as C, etc., within the scope of a substitute payment paid pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act can exercise in subrogation the right to claim wages and retirement allowances against the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.