1. The disposition that the Defendant rendered to the Plaintiffs on February 26, 2014 for revocation of each confirmation of facts shall be revoked.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The Preferential Design Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Preferential Design”) is a company that runs an indoor decoration construction business, etc.

On December 2010, the Postal Design was in the state of default and lack of financing capacity.

B. On July 17, 2011, the Plaintiffs asserted that “the Plaintiff was unable to receive wages, etc. as an employee of the friendly design” and filed an application with the Defendant for dismissal of “recognition of bankruptcy, etc.” under Article 7(1) of the former Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Act No. 12528, Mar. 24, 2014; hereinafter “former Wage Claim Guarantee Act”) and Article 5 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25630, Sept. 24, 2014; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Guarantee Act”).

On September 11, 2011, under the premise that the plaintiffs are workers of the friendly design, the defendant granted the plaintiffs the "recognition of the facts of bankruptcy, etc." under Article 5 (1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act respectively.

The Plaintiffs received substitute payments (referring to wages, etc. paid on behalf of the employer by the Minister of Employment and Labor) pursuant to Article 7(1) of the former Wage Claim Guarantee Act based on each of the above “recognition of the Fact of bankruptcy, etc.” respectively.

C. On February 26, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs on September 11, 201 that each of the above “Recognition of Facts of Bankruptcy, etc.” (the Defendant refers to the “verification of Facts”) was revoked, respectively.

(hereinafter “each of the dispositions of this case”). The reasons for the disposition are as follows.

① Plaintiff B is an individual business operator who works in a mutual name as “F,” and is only a person who has been awarded a subcontract for construction works from the friendly design, not a worker of the friendly design.

② The remaining Plaintiffs are not workers of the friendly design, but merely workers employed by the Plaintiff B.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 9.