1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 30,437,516 and its KRW 3,070,269, the Defendant shall start on October 20, 2018, and the remainder 27,367.

1. Relevant legal principles

A. Workers’ wage and retirement allowance (hereinafter “wages, etc.”) claims constitute public-interest claims under Article 179(1)10 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “ Debtor Rehabilitation Act”).

However, since the legal nature of damages for delay of monetary obligation is the legal nature of damages for delay, it cannot be deemed as equal to claims such as wages. Article 118 Subparag. 1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act provides for “property claims arising from the cause before the commencement of rehabilitation procedures for the debtor” as rehabilitation claims.

B. However, since the custodian is obligated to pay wages, etc. to workers who are public-interest claims at any time after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, it is reasonable to deem that the custodian’s claim for damages arising from delay in the performance of such obligations after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures constitutes “claim arising from any act done by the custodian after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures” as stipulated in Article 179(1)5 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da64908 Decided November 20, 2014). 2. Determination as to the claim

A. We examine this case in light of the above legal principles.

① The Plaintiff was employed by the Plaintiff in Company B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and provided labor during the period from June 25, 2016 to October 5, 2018 (hereinafter “former”) and from November 14, 2018 to December 31, 2019 (hereinafter “after the period”); ② the Defendant, the representative of the Nonparty Company, was deemed the manager upon a decision to commence a simplified rehabilitation procedure under the Daegu District Court Decision 2018 Mahap1004 on August 1, 2018, deemed that the Defendant was the representative of the Nonparty Company; ③ the Defendant failed to pay KRW 27,367,247 among the wages, etc. corresponding to the previous wage, etc. to the Plaintiff up to the date, or the Defendant did not dispute between the parties or paid KRW 1,367,247 among the wages, etc. corresponding to the latter.