1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,721,130 among the Plaintiff and KRW 6,00,000 among them, shall be KRW 47,721,130 from November 15, 2016, and KRW 47,721,130.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, the Plaintiff shall pay the overdue wages, etc. directly to the workers, and shall be entrusted by the Minister of Employment and Labor with the authority to subrogate the workers’ rights to the employers.

B. The Defendant did not pay wages and retirement allowances to six employees, such as C, etc., who were employed by his/her workplace in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government while operating the workplace.

C. The above workers claimed a substitute payment under the Wage Claim Guarantee Act for the unpaid wages and retirement allowances, and the Plaintiff paid the substitute payment corresponding to the wages and retirement allowances to the above workers under Article 7 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, respectively, on November 15, 2016, and on December 47, 2016,721,130 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may subrogate the Plaintiff’s right to claim the unpaid wages, etc. to the Defendant, who is the employer, within the limit of the substitute payment that the Plaintiff paid to its employees. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from December 19, 2016 to August 4, 2019, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, with respect to substitute payment of KRW 53,721,130, and KRW 6,000,00, which is the payment date, to the Plaintiff, from November 15, 2016 to 47,721,130, which is the payment date.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant discontinued his business, and the representative director of the defendant is in progress of the individual rehabilitation procedure, so he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

However, the defendant's obligation is not extinguished because of the discontinuance and discontinuance of business activities, and the defendant is the subject of the rights and obligations that are distinguished from D, the representative director.