1. The defendant's representative party and the plaintiff's representative are the money stated in the "amount claimed" column in the attached Table 1 list.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff's designated party and the plaintiff's designated party are employed by the defendant who operates the hospital (hereinafter "the hospital of this case") and worked for the period from the date of withdrawal to the date of withdrawal as stated in the attached Table Nos. 2, and they did not receive each retirement allowance as stated in the "amount of claim stated in the attached Table No. 1" column, and the plaintiff's designated party and the plaintiff's designated party are those who received each substitute payment

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay each money as stated in the "amount of claim" listed in the attached Table 1 list to the designated parties and the designated parties of the plaintiff and the delay damages therefor.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Although the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s designated party and the appointed party F are not obligated to pay annual allowances by performing external work at the office level of the instant hospital, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant entered into a labor contract with the intention to not pay annual allowances. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Selection G and H are not obligated to pay annual allowance of KRW 1,300,000,000, when converting from cleaning services. However, there is no evidence to support that there was an agreement to pay KRW 1,300,000, including annual allowance, and therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

C. The defendant asserts that the Selection does not have an obligation to pay the annual allowance by separately paying the night allowance, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The defendant asserts that the Appointor J was on a holiday every other day, and that there is no obligation to pay the annual allowance by using the annual hospitalization period. Therefore, the fact that the Appointor J was on a holiday every other day.