1. The defendant,

A. The Plaintiff A’s KRW 30,898,397 and its related KRW 5% per annum from November 15, 2012 to November 26, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around November 2003, the Plaintiff: (a) opened the E Research Institute in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) opened the G Research Institute in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”); and (c) opened the K Institute in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu; (b) around October 2005, the Plaintiff worked as the president of the said private teaching institute.

B. Plaintiff A is serving as an instructor at the instant private teaching institute from March 17, 2004 to October 31, 2012; and Plaintiff B from December 22, 2003 to July 31, 2012.

The retired persons are those.

C. In around 2008, the Plaintiffs received part of the shares of the said JJ Institute from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff A invested KRW 20,000,000 in the Plaintiff B, and KRW 50,000 in the Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant investment”) and entered into an agreement to receive the shares of the JJ Institute (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Meanwhile, from August 1, 2012 to October 31, 2012, Plaintiff A shall be KRW 14,728,940, and Plaintiff B shall be from May 1, 2012.

7. By 31.31. 18,566,30 won was transferred to the account of the instant private teaching institute under the pretext of salary, bonus, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-5-2-2, entry of Eul evidence 1-2, and the whole purport of oral argument

2. Regarding the claim for the payment of retirement allowances, the issues are ① whether the Plaintiffs are the Defendant’s employees, ② whether the interim settlement of retirement allowances between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant is valid, ③ what is the nature of the amount paid by the Defendant on August 1, 2012, ④ when the continuous period of service of the Plaintiffs is from when to when the continuous period of service of the Plaintiffs is from when to when, and ⑤ whether the amount of short-term allowances is included in the wages that are based on the calculation of retirement allowances,

The 1st party's assertion as to whether the plaintiffs are workers of the defendant, that the plaintiffs provided labor in subordinate relationship for the purpose of wages at the time when the plaintiffs worked as instructors in the defendant's educational institute of this case. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay retirement allowances to

As to this, the defendant, and the defendant on January 2005.