1. The defendant,

A. 27,815,821 won to Plaintiff A and 12% per annum from January 1, 2014 to March 12, 2014;

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company established on October 31, 1998 and operated telephone, English education service business, etc. with education centers in the Philippines, etc.

The Plaintiffs were those who were employed by the Defendant and retired from office, and they were employed on April 2, 199 in the case of Plaintiff A and retired on September 30, 2013. In the case of Plaintiff B, they were employed on April 7, 2008 and retired on October 1, 2013. In the case of Plaintiff C, they were employed on May 17, 2010 and retired on February 7, 2014.

B. At the time of entry, the Plaintiffs prepared an employment contract at the time of entry and worked for a designated department, and, for example, during the early 2013 employment period, the Plaintiffs prepared a employment contract at several times during the period of employment, including the preparation of an employment contract from March 1, 2013 to February 28, 2014.

Meanwhile, the Defendant enacted and operated the “Rules on Payment of Retirement Allowances for Officers” (hereinafter “instant Provisions”) to regulate matters related to retirement allowances to be paid to full-time directors and auditors appointed at a general meeting of shareholders, and the main contents are as follows.

Article 4 (Calculation of Number of Continuous Years) The calculation of the number of years of continuous service shall be in accordance with the following subparagraphs:

1. One year for not less than six months and less than one year;

2. In cases of less than six months, 1/2 of the rate of payment for the portion per year shall apply.

Article 6 (Special Cases of Payment of Retirement Allowances) (3) Any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment due to an intentional or gross negligence in connection with his/her duties, and is notified of a decision equivalent to removal, dismissal, dismissal or disciplinary dismissal due to a cause which damages the reputation or credit of the company or causes a loss to the company, shall not be paid a reduction in

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant: (a) concluded a license agreement with a horseing business entity under its de facto control while working at the Mesing Education Center of the Defendant Company C around March 2014, when the Plaintiffs retired, and then used the relevant center’s expenses at will; and (b) Plaintiff A also used the relevant center’s expenses.