1. The defendant

A. The Plaintiff 27,730,766 won and the interest rate of 20% per annum from September 17, 2012 to the date of full payment.

Comprehensively taking account of the following documentary evidence, Plaintiff A was employed and worked for the Defendant Company on August 1, 2007, and retired from office on September 1, 2012. The Defendant Company did not pay KRW 27,730,766 out of the wages from February 1, 2012 to August 1, 2012. Plaintiff B was employed by the Defendant Company and retired from office on November 1, 2012, and the Defendant Company did not pay KRW 34,615,386 out of the wages from February 1, 2012 to October 1, 2012.

[Ground of recognition: The facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole arguments, and the purport of the above recognition] The defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid wages of 27,730,766 won, and damages for delay under Article 37 (1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, and the unpaid wages of 34,615,386 won, and damages for delay under each of the above provisions.

In this regard, the defendant company asserted that "the defendant company decided to reduce the executive salary by 50% through the board of directors in order to avoid business difficulties around February 2012, the defendant company agreed to the above decision, and the plaintiff A and the plaintiff B (the vice president) who were in the position of executive officers at the time agreed to the above decision. Accordingly, since the plaintiffs' salary has been reduced effectively, the defendant company did not have a duty to comply with the claim of this case seeking payment of reduced wages."

In other words, the defendant company is a company run under the ultimate authority and responsibility of the defendant company, which is a representative director, and the plaintiffs used the vice president or vice president of the defendant company to partially assist in the management of D. However, the plaintiffs' legal status is not a director with substantial authority and responsibility, but the plaintiffs are registered as directors of the defendant company.