1. The Defendant stated the “amount requested” column in the annexed sheet to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed Party, respectively.

1. If the purport of the entire argument is added to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s claim and its judgment No. 1, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) are employed by the Defendant and work for the period indicated in the “period of work” in the attached Table No. 1.

The plaintiffs may recognize that they were not paid wages, retirement allowances, etc. as stated in the attached Table “amount claimed” column.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay each of the following amounts in the separate sheet, including wages and retirement allowances, to the Plaintiffs at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act from the date of each day to the date of full payment, which is 14 days after the end of each service period of the Plaintiffs.

2. The Defendant’s assertion argues to the effect that the instant lawsuit by the Changwon District Court was unfair on February 7, 2018, stating that “Until a decision is made on the application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures, all rehabilitation creditors and rehabilitation secured creditors shall be prohibited from compulsory execution, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, or auction procedure for exercising the right of security” (Seoul District Court Decision 2018 Ma1005, Changwon District Court Decision 2018 Ma1005).

However, the general prohibition order has the effect of prohibiting compulsory execution, provisional seizure and auction to exercise the security right against rehabilitation creditors and rehabilitation secured creditors, and thus, it is not prohibited from suspending the litigation procedure of this case or seeking the payment of the claim of this case by lawsuit by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted. However, the defendant was decided to commence the rehabilitation procedure on March 9, 2018, which is the date of closing the argument of this case,