1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 5,739,725 to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party); (b) KRW 7,690,291 to the Appointed C; and (c) KRW 3,116,66 to the Appointed D; and

1. The assertion and judgment

A. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire arguments as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party retired on May 31, 2019 while serving as the defendant's employee, but did not receive the wages and retirement allowances of the same amount as that of the disposition No. 1.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of money as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article to the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party with overdue wages and retirement allowances.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant paid or paid income tax on wages in arrears and retirement allowances, the amount should be reduced to that amount.

However, the Defendant cannot withhold income tax in advance at the stage of paying the unpaid wages, etc. to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da23180, Sept. 23, 1994). The Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 5,739,725 won in arrears and retirement pay, 7,690,291 won in arrears, 3,16,666 won in Selection C, 9,445,539 won in Selection E, 7,45,57,228 won in Selection F, 3,116,666 won in Selection G, 8,005,211 won in arrears, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 15, 2019 to the date of full payment.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff (appointed party) on the ground that it is reasonable to accept the plaintiff's claim.