1. The defendant,

A. As from September 15, 2015, Plaintiff A and B respectively KRW 3 million and its related thereto:

B. The plaintiff C is KRW 3 million;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs are not entitled to the amount of unpaid wages as stated in the separate sheet “the date of withdrawal” in the separate sheet from the pertinent date to the pertinent date, and each “date of withdrawal” in the separate sheet of “the details of overdue wages of the Plaintiffs” in the Dacheon-gun R Hospital located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “S Hospital”) was not paid to the Plaintiffs who retired from office until the pertinent date.

B. The Defendant conspired with T and U (the Defendant’s father) and lent the name of the registration of the establishment of the S Hospital to T, and T from September 27, 2014 to August 28, 2015, established and operated the S Hospital under the name of the Defendant and employs the Defendant, who is a doctor, as an employee of the S Hospital, and employed the Plaintiffs as an employee of the S Hospital.

(In relation to this, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of indictment for a violation of the Medical Service Act at the Gun Office of the former District Public Prosecutor's Office on December 30, 2015, and T was finalized on October 4, 2016 in the case of violation of the Medical Service Act No. 2016No98, etc. of the Jeonju High Court on October 4, 2016.

On the other hand, the Defendant was prosecuted on the charge of violating the Labor Standards Act that he/she had been in arrears with the wages of retired workers while working in the S Hospital, but on September 12, 2016, whether he/she is an employer should be determined based on the actual labor relationship. On the other hand, the Defendant was sentenced to the verdict of innocence on the ground that T employed the Defendant and opened and operated the S Hospital under the name of the Defendant (Seoul Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch Court 2015Ma1251), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it was dismissed

(Reasons for Recognition) The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion against the Defendant the unpaid wages indicated in the attached Table “the details of the Plaintiffs’ overdue wages” and Article 37(1) of the Labor Standards Act.