1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) filed a claim against the Plaintiff (Appointed Defendant, Counterclaim Defendant) and the Appointor according to the annexed Form.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. (1) As to the cause of the claim, the designated parties listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) including the Plaintiff are employed by the Defendant for construction business, etc. during the period of service on the claim amount and the base date for each of the designated parties, and worked at the construction site of the two Industrial Complex at Yangsan Industrial University, Industrial and Factory Convergence Center, under the employment of the Defendant for each of the relevant designated parties, during the same period, and the designated parties did not receive money from the Defendant in the corresponding claim amount as wages or retirement allowances on February 2016, 2016 or March 2016, the fact that the designated parties did not dispute between the parties, or that they did not receive money from the Defendant in the corresponding claim amount

(2) According to the facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, etc. the amount indicated in the corresponding claim column on the “amount claimed by the selected party and the initial date of calculation” as wages or retirement allowances, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the initial date of calculation to the date of full payment of the pertinent damages for delay under the same Table.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the amount of withholding income tax, employment insurance premium, etc. should be deducted from the wage or retirement allowance of the Plaintiff, etc., but inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant actually paid income tax, etc. to be withheld, the Defendant cannot collect and deduct income tax, etc. in advance prior to the payment of income amount, such as wage and retirement allowance, and the same applies to collection

(2) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 4,447,500 in excess of wages due to the number of days of actual service from February 2, 2015 to January 22, 2016, by failing to work, leaving work or leaving work, etc. However, there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion on the number of working days and details from February 2, 2015 to December 2, 2015.