1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim was employed by the Defendant as a manager from November 30, 2013 to November 30, 2014, and worked at the Defendant’s B department store C store.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 10,00,000 to the Defendant as a deposit, but did not receive a refund after retirement, and did not receive a total of KRW 9,987,87,870 for August, 2014, October, and November, and did not receive a retirement allowance of KRW 3,985,170.

On August 28, 2015, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,662,791 out of the deposited money and KRW 1,660,774 out of the sales commission in accordance with the Defendant’s rehabilitation plan.

The Plaintiff’s 20,649,475 won [10,00,00 won 9,987,870 won 3,985,170 won (1,62,791 won 1,660,774 won)] that the Plaintiff should receive from the Defendant constitutes a public-interest claim as wage and retirement allowance, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff, regardless of whether it is included in the rehabilitation plan as rehabilitation claim.

Basic Facts

On March 25, 2015, the key issue was: (a) rehabilitation procedures began with respect to the Defendant Company as Seoul Central District Court 2015 Ma10053 on March 25, 2015; (b) the Plaintiff’s claim for security deposit and sales commission claims as rehabilitation claims; (c) the Defendant Company submitted the rehabilitation plan by recognizing the Plaintiff’s claim as rehabilitation claims; (d) the said court, on August 13, 2015, authorized the rehabilitation plan to grant full exemption of the principal and interest prior to commencement of rehabilitation claims, 48.4% exemption, 16.6% cash payment, 35% cash payment, and interest after the commencement of debt-equity swap; and (d) the Defendant Company repaid to the Plaintiff the repayment of the amount equivalent to 16.6% of the deposit and sales commission (1,62,791 won, 60,774 won) pursuant to the rehabilitation plan on August 28, 2015; and (e) the Defendant Company is recognized to have not settled between the parties’ early performance of rehabilitation claims or settlement.

Therefore, the issues of this case are the money deposited, which the plaintiff seeks.