A. The Plaintiffs, under the trade name of “I”, are those operating the Franice Center, and the Defendants, as “hwitner,” had been employed by the Plaintiffs, directed the customers who visited the Franice Center, and engaged in the work of inducing customers.

B. By December 2013, the Plaintiffs, including the Defendants, are deemed to be “basic pay” and “performance pay” calculated as follows, but the parties to the “performance pay” are deemed to be “satisfy”. However, the said judgment states the “performance pay”.

The total amount of “tuition fee” was paid.

- Basic pay: 1,00,000 - Tuitions: Amount obtained by multiplying 11,000 won by the number of classes held in the relevant month - 12% of the sales generated by the classes held by the health str: Provided, That 12% of the sales generated by the operation held by the health str, however, after receiving the piece rate for classes held by the health str, it must be refunded to the plaintiffs according to the ratio of the remaining number of business if the classes are left without completing all of the completion.

B. The payment system operated from January 2014 to January 2015 by agreement with the Defendants, including the Defendants, is as follows.

- No basic grade - No tuition: - No tuition amount: Amount equivalent to 43% or 47% of the sales derived from classes held by the Defendants - However, if the Defendants received piece rates for classes held by the Defendants, and then retire without completing all such classes, the piece rates should be refunded to the Plaintiffs according to the remaining ratio of the number of business in the case of retirement.

(hereinafter “this piece-rate Return Agreement”) C.

From February 2, 2015, the Plaintiffs returned to the former benefit system (which was before December 2013, and which was the basic salary, tuition, and somewhat low piece rates).

Defendant H retired on May 31, 2015, respectively, on July 6, 2015, Defendant C, D, E, F, and G.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendants retire.