1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination of the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion is as follows: (a) from 2013 to 2015, the Defendant was subject to an administrative fine of KRW 143,324,00 on the ground that D was not aware of his/her own account and received drug expenses through a borrowed account; (b) the Defendant was subject to an administrative fine of KRW 143,324,00 on the ground that he/she omitted the sales report and received the drug expenses through a borrowed account; and (c) paid a higher amount of wages paid to D as much as the amount deposited in the account.

If the defendant offsets the damage claim against D or the claim for reimbursement against D's wage against D's defendant, all of the seized claims are extinguished, so the plaintiffs' claims should be dismissed in entirety.

B. According to the main text of Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act, since wages are paid in full directly to workers in currency, it is a principle that an employer does not offset the employee’s wage claims by his/her claim against the employee.

However, in cases where wages are paid in excess due to an error in calculation, etc., if a worker requests wages or retirement allowances which he/she did not receive during his/her service after his/her retirement, or if, even if the worker claims wages during his/her service, the time when the excess payment was made and the time when the right of offset was exercised is close as much as the time when the adjustment of wages is not lost, and if the employer’s prior notice of the amount and method of offset is not likely to undermine the stability of the worker’s economic life, the employer may offset the worker’s right of return

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da77290 Decided December 11, 2014). C.

. Determination.