2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

A. The defendant is a company that runs real estate brokerage business.

Plaintiff

A worked for the Defendant from July 28, 2016 to September 2, 2016, and Plaintiff B from August 8, 2016 to September 2, 2016 to September 2, 2016.

B. The Defendant unpaid the Plaintiff’s wage of KRW 2,989,246 (i.e., wage of KRW 322,580 on July 2016) (i.e., wage of KRW 166,666 on September 8, 2016). The Defendant unpaid the Plaintiff’s wage of KRW 2,102,149 (i.e., wage of KRW 1,935,483 on August 8, 2016).

C. On November 25, 2016, E, the Defendant’s actual manager, was indicted for summary order of KRW 700,000, which was issued on December 8, 2016, due to the fact that the aforementioned payment of wages was made in violation of the Labor Standards Act (Act No. 2016Da26694), and the above summary order became final and conclusive on February 1, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claims

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A wages of KRW 2,989,246, and wages of KRW 2,102,149, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Labor Standards Act from September 17, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the 14th day following the date on which the Plaintiffs retired.

B. As to the Defendant’s argument, first, the Defendant asserts that, in a situation where the Defendant transferred the Defendant’s business know-how to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs did not have been paid wages for not less than one year, even though they agreed with the Defendant, and they did not have been paid wages for not less than one month. Thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay wages

Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to pay wages to the Plaintiffs on the condition that the Plaintiffs have worked for not less than one year, as alleged by the Defendant, on the sole basis of the descriptions of health class Nos. 1 and 3.