A. The defendant is a juristic person established for the purpose of manufacturing the processing of scrap metal and non-ferrous metal, and the plaintiffs are those who work or retired while working for the defendant company from the date of each entry column in the attached Table at the facility purchase team of the defendant company to the present day.

B. Plaintiffs A, B, C, andO representing the Plaintiffs were withdrawn on September 18, 2018.

On December 31, 2015, the Defendant agreed with the following (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Performance-based bonuses shall be paid the same as the P Cooperation Agency, but shall be paid until January 29, 2016.

Wages in 2015 shall increase the base salary of 58,500 won.

Provided, That as of the partner, it shall be applied retroactively from August 2015.

C. The cooperation company P Co., Ltd (hereinafter “P”) paid 8,100,000 won to its employees as piece rates in 2015.

The plaintiffs received 6.4 million won as piece rates from the defendant, and the remaining 1.7 million won was not paid.

On the other hand, the defendant did not pay part of the statutory allowances that applied 58,500 won to the plaintiffs to apply retroactively from August 2015.

The statutory allowances for which the plaintiffs have not received shall be as specified in the column for statutory allowances in attached Table.

[Based on the recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings (Evidence No. 7 is insufficient as counter-written evidence) [Defendant Nos. 3 (a written agreement is signed by director Q of defendant company's company's company's company's arbitrarily, so it is invalid)]

The above agreement, in which the contents of the instant agreement were written, signed by Q to the representative column of the Defendant Company, and the fact that Q was a private person next to that agreement does not conflict between the parties.

However, considering that Gap evidence Nos. 2 and Eul evidence Nos. 9 added to the purport of the whole pleadings, Q has given approval by the above method on behalf of R while taking overall control over the internal management of the defendant company of Pyeongtaek, and the defendant company made a forgery of the above agreement to Q.