1. The defendant shall enter each of the money stated in the separate claim amount column in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs and each of the initial date in the separate sheet.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiffs were employed by the defendant and retired from office as stated in the annexed work date column, and the defendant did not pay each wage and retirement allowance as stated in the annexed claim amount column even after 14 days from the retirement date to the plaintiffs.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-2 evidence (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs each amount stated in the separate claim form and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from the initial date to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On November 7, 2013, E entered into a contract with F, who was a major shareholder of the Defendant and a de facto manager, to acquire management rights, etc., and F, at that time, agreed to pay the Defendant’s liabilities such as the above wage to the Plaintiffs. F, upon the Defendant’s exemption of the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiffs, the Defendant discharged the Defendant’s obligation (i.e., the note 2), as the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff A and C, it should be deemed that F paid the Defendant’s obligation such as the above wage, etc. to the Plaintiff A and C.

(B)(b).

Judgment

1) As to the claim (1), Article 454 of the Civil Act provides that, in cases where a third party assumes an obligation based on a contract with the obligor and discharge the obligor’s obligation, it takes effect against the obligee only with the obligee’s consent. Therefore, in cases where the obligee’s consent is not obtained, even if the obligor and the underwriter agree to assume an obligation with the discharge, it is invalid as a performance acceptance, etc., and the obligor is not exempt from the obligation (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da88303, May 24, 2012). Even if F has discharged the Defendant’s obligation against the Plaintiffs, such as the above wages, etc.,