1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,557,264 and KRW 6,569,424 among the Plaintiff and KRW 6,524 from January 1, 2012, and KRW 6,423,360.

1. The defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of collective investment securities investment trading business and investment brokerage business.

On May 23, 1980, the Plaintiff joined the Korea Housing and Commercial Bank and worked until December 31, 1994, but transferred to the Defendant on January 1, 1995, and the Defendant retired on May 31, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's 5, 6, 36 Evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to a labor contract concluded between the original Defendant claiming that the Plaintiff was entitled to the unpaid performance bonus in 2011 and 2012, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff an amount calculated by multiplying the basic annual salary and the payment limit of the performance bonus (50%) by the target achievement bonus (60% of the company performance, 20% of the department performance, and 20% of the individual performance bonus).

The plaintiff's achievement level does not exceed 51% in 2001 and 91% in 2002, and thereafter 71% in 2003. This is intended to make an unfair calculation by the defendant or not to pay the achievement grade as agreed upon by the defendant. Since 2001, all the plaintiff's achievement grade should be calculated by applying 10% in 200.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s performance rating in 201 is KRW 50 million (i.e., KRW 10 million x KRW 50 percent x the limit of payment of piece rates x KRW 100%). The Plaintiff’s performance rating in 2012 is KRW 55 million (i.e., the basic annual salary x the limit of payment of piece rates x 50 percent x 10%). The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million unpaid performance rating in 20 million (i.e., KRW 50 million - KRW 30 million achievement rating in 20 million) and the amount of accrued performance rating in 2012 (i.e., KRW 50 million - KRW 35 million) and damages for delay.

B. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 31-2, 3, and 38-49, the plaintiff was assessed to have excellent performance in 2005 and 2008, the plaintiff was assessed to have excellent performance from the Minister of Finance and Economy on December 31, 200, and on December 31, 2006.