1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as a creditor-mortgage and mortgagee-mortgage for the non-party company limited company on the date and time UN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party company”), commenced the auction procedure for real estate auction (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) by exercising the right to collateral security established on the real estate owned by the non-party company as a creditor-mortgage.

B. The Plaintiff, as the applicant creditor and the mortgagee, 331,347,551 won as the mortgagee, and the Defendant Labor Welfare Corporation (hereinafter the “Defendant Welfare Corporation”) took part in the instant auction procedure and filed a report on rights and demand for distribution by taking account of the amount of KRW 47,890,470 as the physical obligee who paid the wages and retirement allowances to the retired workers of the non-party company on behalf of the non-party company pursuant to the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, and KRW 8,013,717 as the priority wage obligee, as the ordinary wage obligee, and KRW 16,66,60 as the general wage obligee.

C. On April 13, 2014, the auction court recognized the Defendants as the lawful right holder, and drafted a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the amount of KRW 47,890,470 to Defendant A (i.e., the top priority wage of KRW 8,013,013,704, general wage of KRW 11,142,615), and the Plaintiff’s dividends of KRW 79,502,815.

On the date of distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the Defendants and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant paid a substitute payment to the said employees, even though there is no objective data to verify the wage claim of the employees of the non-party company, and the Defendant A also paid a substitute payment to the said employees. The lack of supporting evidence is insufficient to recognize

Nevertheless, since the distribution schedule of this case prepared by the auction court by recognizing the defendants as legitimate right holder is unfair, the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.