1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff A KRW 6,352,252, KRW 17,535,360 to the Plaintiff B, and KRW 22,361,205 to the Plaintiff C and each of the above money.

1. Case summary

A. The Plaintiffs, at the E branch operated by the Defendant, retired from the Ministry of Education in charge of educating students as instructors.

B. The plaintiffs asserted that they are liable to pay the following allowances and retirement allowances because they provided their labor to the defendant for the purpose of wages, and they were in the status of workers under the Labor Standards Act under the actual direction and supervision of the defendant.

1) Plaintiff A: 3,254,400 won for unpaid weekly leave allowances, annual leave allowances of 815,650 won, annual leave allowances of 2,282,202 won for unpaid retirement allowances, and 6,352,252 won for unpaid retirement allowances of 445,50 won, unpaid weekly leave allowances of 3,796,00 won, unpaid annual leave allowances of 3,968,000 won, and unpaid retirement allowances of 17,535,360 won for unpaid retirement allowances of 9,325,860 won, Plaintiff C: unpaid overtime leave allowances of 2,132,00 won, and unpaid weekly leave allowances of 5,248,000 won, annual leave allowances of 3,840,000 won, and unpaid retirement allowances of 11,114,201,205 won, 205 won, 2036,205 won.

C. In the case related to the same issue as the instant case (the first instance court’s Busan District Court’s 2016Da7032, the appellate court’s 2017Na43401, the appellate court’s 2017Na43401, the Supreme Court’s 2017Da294127, the final appellate court’s 2017Da

2. Determination on the key issue (whether the plaintiff's employee is a worker and whether the plaintiff Gap's retirement allowance is recognized)

A. According to the conclusion of the judgment on the relevant case, the Plaintiffs are deemed workers of the Defendant.

B. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the amount of allowances to be paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff A, the amount of allowances to be paid to the Plaintiff B and C, and the amount of retirement allowances. However, there is a dispute between the said Plaintiff and the Defendant as to whether the obligation to pay retirement allowances

1. Plaintiff A’s assertion: On February 10, 2014, Plaintiff A joined the Defendant Company and used the monthly leave on October 2014, and continued to work for the Defendant Company until May 7, 2015.