1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

1. The Defendant asserts that, on March 29, 2018, the Defendant’s claim for holiday allowance against the Plaintiff was unlawful, since the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a protocol of compromise, including the agreement to bring an action against the Plaintiff on March 29, 2018.

According to the evidence evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared a protocol of compromise pursuant to Article 16-3 of the Labor Relations Commission Act between the Labor Relations Commission and the Defendant on March 29, 2018, and Article 16-4 of the said protocol of compromise provides that “The instant employee shall not raise any objection under any circumstances, including the overall matters of labor relations and the termination of labor relations, and by any means of civil, criminal, administrative, or any other means in the future.”

However, the above provision provides that the lawsuit of this case shall not be raised in the future civil or criminal cases. At the time of the preparation of the above protocol of compromise, the lawsuit of this case shall continue to exist in the court, and the above protocol of compromise shall be deemed to have been prepared by the defendant upon the plaintiff's motion of disciplinary dismissal on October 31, 2017 where the lawsuit of this case is pending and the plaintiff raised an application for remedy in dispute of the validity of the above disciplinary dismissal. The above protocol of compromise does not contain the contents concerning the allowance to be sought in this case, or the contents of the lawsuit of this case, and it is reasonable to view that the above protocol of compromise does not affect the lawsuit of this case

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

2. The fact that the Defendant’s judgment on the cause of the claim is a company that operates a comprehensive leisure facility, training facility, sports facility, social welfare facility, etc., and that the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant and provided labor from May 21, 201, and that the Defendant did not pay KRW 2,633,024 of the annual paid leave allowance to the Plaintiff is a dispute between the parties.