A. The defendant is a corporation that manufactures advertising materials in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E.

B. From June 22, 2015, Plaintiff A worked for the Defendant Company from October 1, 2015, Plaintiff B from Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C from April 1, 2016 to May 31, 2018, respectively.

C. The Defendant’s representative director F was sentenced to a fine of 4 million won as of August 13, 2019, on the criminal facts that “if an employer engaged in the advertisement manufacturing business using ten regular employees retires, he/she was sentenced to a fine of 14,521,144 won of retirement allowance of the Plaintiff C, 10,882,728 won of retirement allowance of the Plaintiff C, 13,731,137 won of retirement allowance of the Plaintiff B, and 14 days from the date of each retirement without any agreement on the extension of the payment period between the parties concerned,” and that “if the employee retires from his/her office, he/she was sentenced to a fine of 14 days from the date of each retirement, as of August 13, 2019.

The above judgment was finalized on August 21, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A with retirement allowance of KRW 14,521,144, KRW 13,731,137, and KRW 10,882,728, and each of the above amounts to the plaintiff C with compensation for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from June 15, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the 14th day after the retirement date.

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The defendant agreed to pay a certain amount of retirement allowance in advance with the monthly wage paid to the plaintiffs, and the agreement was null and void since it violated the mandatory law, which is not effective as a retirement allowance and does not constitute wages paid in return for work. Thus, the plaintiffs received money in the name of the retirement allowance, namely, the plaintiff A, the plaintiff A, the plaintiff B, and the plaintiff B, the 13,731.