2. The costs after the appeal shall be the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim.

A. The Defendant’s determination as to the cause of the claim ought to receive KRW 2,200,00 per month of salary in the D Beauty Room operated by himself/herself, and dismissed the Plaintiff, a beauty artist, who had worked from around March 21, 2012, on or around July 28, 2014 without prior notice of dismissal. However, the Defendant should pay not less than 30 days’ ordinary wages in cases where the Defendant did not pre-determination of dismissal 30 days prior to dismissal under Article 26 of the Labor Standards Act, without the agreement on extension of the payment date between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

The fact that a total of KRW 7,274,630, including KRW 2,200,00, has not been paid is not disputed between the parties, or it may be recognized by taking into account the respective descriptions of evidence No. 1 and No. 3 and the whole purport of the pleadings.

According to the above facts, pursuant to Article 37(1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount in arrears with 7,274,630 won and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 12, 2014 to the day of full payment, which is the 14th day following the date when the Plaintiff’s ground for the payment of the amount in arrears occurred.

B. The Defendant asserts that, (i) the Defendant is not obligated to pay the advance payment of dismissal allowance as follows: (ii) the Plaintiff voluntarily retires or is absent from office frequently by the Plaintiff; (iii) absence from office; and (iv) failure to cause enormous hindrance to the business intentionally or cause property damage to the customer; and (iv) the Defendant has no obligation to pay

However, the fact that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff was seen earlier, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to deem that the defendant caused enormous impediment to the defendant's business or caused property damage due to the plaintiff's neglect of duty or bad faith as alleged by the defendant, and there is no other evidence, therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Luxembourg The defendant paid KRW 1,380,000 to the plaintiff on August 8, 2014.