1. The Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay by September 28, 2017, among the instant lawsuit, shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant.

1. The fact of recognition was found that the Plaintiff was employed by B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “debtor Company”) from July 1, 2008 to August 14, 2017 and retired from office. However, the Plaintiff did not receive the total of KRW 141,091,461 from the debtor company as wages and retirement allowances. The debtor company was ordered to commence rehabilitation as Seoul Rehabilitation Court Decision 2017 Gohap10158 on September 28, 2017, and the fact that the Defendant was appointed as the administrator on the same day does not conflict between the parties.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Article 179 Subparag. 10 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Act”) provides for “worker’s wage, retirement allowance, and accident compensation” as a priority claim. Article 180(1) of the same Act provides that “public-interest claims shall be repaid from time to time without undergoing rehabilitation procedures.” Thus, the Defendant, a custodian of the debtor company, is liable to pay the remaining wage and retirement allowance to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) On September 28, 2017, ex officio the part of the damages for delay that occurred until September 28, 2017, as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit, the health room for determining the legitimacy of the lawsuit. The employee’s right to claim damages arising from delay in performing the obligation to pay wages, etc. of workers before the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure is “property claim (Article 118 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act) arising before the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure against the debtor,” and is deemed a rehabilitation claim as it does not constitute a priority claim under Article 179 of the Debtor Rehabilitation Act.

Therefore, the part claiming damages for delay that occurred from 14 days after the date of retirement of the Plaintiff until September 28, 2017, which is the date of the commencement decision of rehabilitation of the debtor company, should be exercised according to rehabilitation procedures. Thus, this part of the claim is unlawful.

(ii).