1. The Defendant (Appointeds) KRW 12,829,50, and KRW 767,250 to the appointed parties C, and KRW 3,223,578 to the appointed parties D.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant has been a corporation with the aim of multi-family housing management business, etc., and has been performing the duty of security service for the Young-gu Busan Metropolitan City H apartment since 2013.

Work period A from January 1, 201 to December 31, 2015, C from August 6, 2015 to December 31, 2015, D 2013.4.9 to December 31, 2015, E from December 31, 2013.12.2 to December 31, 2013, E from January 2, 2012 to December 31, 2015, from February 8, 2014 to December 31, 2015.

The plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") entered into an employment contract with the defendant and served as security guards in H apartment as shown in the following table.

C. The written employment contract signed by the Plaintiff et al. and the Defendant states that the Plaintiff et al. worked for 24 hours from 06:30 to 06:30 on the following day, 24 hours, and 5 hours during the day, in addition to the night hours during 24 hours per day (from 11:0 to 13:30 and from 17:0 to 19:30 on the day).

Plaintiff

Not later than the end of 2013, eight security guards employed by the Defendant and worked in H apartment were composed of four each of Articles A and B, and four guards worked in the first place in the four guard room. From the beginning of 2014, four persons were composed of two each of Articles A and B, and work in two first places in the front and latter part of the two documents.

E. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff et al. asserted that the Plaintiff et al. did not pay wages even though he/she worked during the daytime recess hours, and filed a complaint against the Defendant’s representative director I and H apartment as the chairman of the council of occupants’ representatives in violation of the Labor Standards Act. However, I and J received a non-prosecution disposition (no suspicion) on October 21, 2016.

In this regard, the plaintiff et al. appealed to the Busan High Prosecutors' Office but was dismissed.

Plaintiff

In other words, the Busan High Court rendered an application for adjudication under the Busan High Court Decision 2017 Seocho Jae159, but the court dismissed the application on June 14, 2017 on the ground that it was insufficient to deem that I had the intention of violating the Labor Standards Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “related criminal case”). (e)

On the other hand, however,