1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 30,000,000 with respect to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B Co., Ltd. from June 26, 2012.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff was employed and retired from office by the defendant Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the defendant company") from July 1, 2010 to June 11, 2012. The defendant company did not pay 30,000,000 won in total of wages from August 8, 2011 to June 2012 to the plaintiff without an agreement on the extension of the payment date until 14 days after the date of retirement. The defendant C, who had been a inside director of the defendant company at the time of November 19, 2012, prepared a letter of payment stating that the plaintiff will pay the above unpaid wages of 30,000,000 won to the plaintiff individually until December 31, 2013.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,00,000 unpaid wages and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 26, 2012 to January 8, 2015, which is the delivery date of the complaint from June 26, 2012 to the delivery date of the complaint, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. ② The Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 30,000,000 per annum under the written contract for joint payment (joint payment) with the Defendant Company and the due date from January 1, 2014 to March 24, 2015, the delivery date of the complaint, which is 5% per annum under the Civil Act from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. On November 12, 2012, Defendant Company asserted to the effect that it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request because it waivers the corporation due to the fact that D was newly appointed as the representative director without being aware of the Plaintiff’s unpaid wages, and that it was virtually impossible to conduct the business. However, the Defendant Company maintained the identity of the legal entity regardless of whether it was changed or given up its representative director’s business.