1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From June 28, 2012 to September 23, 2012, the Plaintiff retired from office after being employed by the Defendant and D who jointly operates a restaurant in the name of “C” and provided labor.

B. The Defendant and D did not pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 1,386,667,67 of August 2012, 2012, the wage of KRW 213,33, and the wage of KRW 1,173,334 on September 2012, without agreement on extension of the payment date.

C. On January 12, 2016, after the judgment of the first instance court was rendered, the Plaintiff received substitute payment of KRW 1,386,667 from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. According to the facts found above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,386,667, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Labor Standards Act from October 8, 2012, which was the day following the lapse of 14 days from September 23, 2012, which was the date on which the cause for wage payment occurred, to the Plaintiff, until January 12, 2016, the Plaintiff was paid substitute payments from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service (=1,386,667 x 20% x 20% x 97/365 days)).

(1) In the event that the Labor Welfare Corporation pays wages based on the final judgment on behalf of a business owner, the employee’s wage claim is transferred to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service pursuant to Article 7 of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act, and the employee’s wage claim is extinguished. As such, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s wage claim is only KRW 90,000,000, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claims are dismissed as without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with some different conclusions, the part against the defendant ordering payment exceeding the above recognition amount in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the cancellation part shall be revoked.