1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiffs' lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for wages, etc. (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”) under this Court No. 2014 Ghana57199 against the Defendant with respect to the delayed payment of wages and retirement allowances for employees employed by the Defendant and did not receive the wages and retirement allowances as follows:

Plaintiff A, on October 28, 2018 to October 2013, 2013, 2,348,100 won, 2,536,248 won, 4,884,348 won, 4,401, 501, 6,490, 211 won, 6,490, 211 won, Plaintiff C, from October 301 to October 30, 2013, KRW 4,401, 501 won, 648,493 won, 981, 919 won, 4,630, 412 won.

B. The causes of the previous lawsuit are specified for each Plaintiff’s above service period, and the initial date in reckoning damages for delay was indicated as “The Plaintiffs seek on November 1, 2014 (the following day after 14 days have elapsed from the date on which the Plaintiff provided the final labor).”

C. On March 4, 2015, this Court rendered a judgment in favor of all the Plaintiffs to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay the amount of the amount in arrears and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from November 1, 2014 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit seeking for the omission of delay damages from November 1, 2013 to October 31, 2014, which is not “1 November 1, 2013” but “1, 2014.” as one of the initial dates when the retirement dates for each employee has changed due to the difference in the previous lawsuit.

[Grounds for Recognition] : Each entry in Gap evidence 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the facts that are obvious to this court

2. Determination

A. If a lawsuit seeking performance of part of a claim is filed and the remainder is reserved and only a part of the claim is specified, res judicata of the final and conclusive judgment extends to the remaining remaining claim, and thus, the remaining part cannot be separately claimed.

(Supreme Court Decision 92Da33008 delivered on June 25, 1993).