A. In the case of the claim for retirement allowance against the Plaintiff, the Seoul Central District Court 2015Gahap52274, which the Defendants filed against the Plaintiff, [Attachment 1] The judgment of the Defendant, along with the retirement allowance calculation sheet, that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff A the amount calculated at the rate of 15,823,920 won, 13,440,000 won, and 6% per annum from August 15, 2012 to December 15, 2015, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment,” was sentenced as of December 15, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive as is.

B. In calculating the amount of withholding tax on each money recorded in the retirement allowance column in the table (attached Form 1) in the above judgment, the Plaintiff calculated the Defendants’ continuous service years applied when calculating the retirement income tax, on the ground that the Defendants entered into a delegation contract with the Defendants on a one-year basis, and calculated the amount of withholding tax as to this portion, contrary to the above judgment.

C. In calculating the amount of withholding tax for the interest in arrears that the Plaintiff ordered payment in another judgment, the Plaintiff considered it as other income under Article 21(1)10 of the Income Tax Act, and calculated the amount of withholding tax for this portion by applying 20% of other income tax rate and 2% of other resident tax.

On January 18, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited the amount calculated pursuant to the foregoing (attached Form 2) and the interest for arrears accrued until January 18, 2016, after deducting the amount of withholding tax calculated at the rate of 22% (the same shall apply to the statement in the column of the amount of deduction on the fourth page of the preparatory document dated May 23, 2016) from the income tax calculated at the rate of 22%. Based on this, the Seoul Central District Court decided to suspend compulsory execution on February 22, 2016 with respect to the case of the Seoul Central District Court 2016KaMa93.

E. The Defendants reserved an objection on January 28, 2016 and withdrawn each of the aforementioned deposits.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, 11, and 12 (including paper numbers) respectively.