2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On November 22, 2010, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company as the managing director, and was in charge of the head office as the managing director of the Defendant Company until February 28, 201, from March 1, 2011 to April 30, 2013, from March 1, 2011 to April 30, 201, and from May 1, 2013 to May 201, the Plaintiff was in charge of the corporate head office as the corporate head office of the Defendant Company, the corporate head office of the Defendant Company, the vice president of the main office of the Defendant Company, and the corporate head office of the Defendant Company from May 1, 2013 to May 2015.

From June 2015 to January 31, 2016, at the time of the incorporation of the defendant company as the head of the Mexico corporation (EE corporation), the vice president of G was a superior.

Each employee has worked.

B. On December 29, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted a resignation letter to the effect that “to resign as of January 31, 2016,” and on January 25, 2016, the Plaintiff asked the company to “whether it is impossible to settle the accounts of retirement allowances based on five years during which he/she actually worked,” but the Defendant is deemed to have no retirement allowance.

Provided, That payment of retirement consolation benefits for three months shall be made;

‘The answer was made to the effect that ‘’ was followed.

C. On February 25, 2016, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 6,504,080 on the remainder of KRW 14,745,919 in total amount of income tax, gift tax, loan, and other deductions in KRW 21,249,99 on the average wage for the last three months as retirement consolation benefits.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 9 (including branch numbers if there is a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of the Plaintiff’s claim is the employee under the specific direction and supervision of the representative director F, vice president G, and the managing director of the headquarters H while working for the Defendant Company, and thus, constitutes the employee under the Labor Standards Act.

Although the corporate head was not a corporate head, there was no special treatment, nor had it freely get to and from work.

Therefore, the defendant is entitled to retirement pay under the Labor Standards Act to the plaintiff 36,412.