1. The Defendant: 22,40,066 won to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party); 2,450,000 won to the appointed Party C; and 8,192,197 won to the appointed Party D;

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, the plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties are employed by the defendant company that provides real estate consulting services, etc. in Daegu-gu I and five floors from August 31, 2012 to the plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties C from June 27, 2018; the Selection D from April 25, 2016 to the Selection; the Selection E from May 15, 2017; the Selection F from July 111, 2018 to the Selection G from August 27, 2014; and the Selection H from May 23, 2013 to December 31, 2018.

It is recognized that the defendant company did not pay the wages of November and December of 2018 and retirement allowances equivalent to the period of service of the plaintiff (appointed party) and the designated parties without an agreement on the extension of the due date for payment between the parties.

According to the above facts, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff (Appointed) the total amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances of KRW 22,40,066, the total amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances of KRW 2,450,000, the amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances of KRW 8,192,197, the total amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances of KRW 4,940,113, the amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances of the Selection E, the amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances of KRW 2,100,000, the amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances of KRW 12,541,750, the total amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances of KRW 17,527,485, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum of the Labor Standards Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act from January 15, 2019 to the date of full payment.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the representative director in the name of the defendant is J and the actual representative director is K, but the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim for the payment of wages and retirement allowances against the defendant company, so it is not a problem whether the actual representative director is or not, so the defendant's claim is rejected.

If so, the plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim of this case is with merit.