1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a wage claim lawsuit against the Plaintiff, asserting that “A labor contract with the Plaintiff was concluded between February 4, 2014 and February 23, 2015, the Plaintiff did not pay the Plaintiff wages of KRW 2,636,362, retirement allowances of KRW 2,116,398, total amount of KRW 4,752,760,” and that “The Plaintiff did not pay the Plaintiff wages of KRW 2,636,362.”

B. On October 20, 2015, the foregoing court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the instant decision”) to the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff would pay KRW 4,752,760 to the Defendant and delay damages therefrom” (hereinafter “the instant decision”). While receiving the service on October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an objection on November 12, 2015, and the instant decision became final and conclusive as is, even if the Plaintiff received the service on October 28, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, since May 2014, the Plaintiff changed the wage payment scheme to a urgency system, the Defendant also consented to the above change and received all wages pursuant to the urgency system until retirement, the Defendant’s assertion that there is no obligation to pay the wage of KRW 2,636,362 claimed by the Defendant.

In regard to this, the defendant did not have any fact that the plaintiff promoted the change of the market price system, but the defendant did not consent thereto, and the plaintiff has a duty to pay 2,636,362 won out of the wages calculated according to the existing payment method to the defendant.

B. In a lawsuit seeking objection against a final decision of performance recommendation, not only the grounds for extinguishing a claim after the decision of performance recommendation or preventing the exercise of a claim, but also the failure or invalidation of a claim before the decision of performance recommendation is also the grounds for objection (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da54999, Jan. 26, 2006). Therefore, even if the decision of this case became final and conclusive, insofar as the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with some of the above decision at the request of the Plaintiff, the Defendant is in accordance with the existing payment method.