1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 19,039,121 and a rate of KRW 20% per annum from December 2, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

Basic Facts

The defendant is a corporation that operates reinforced concrete construction business, etc., and the plaintiff is an employee who has worked as the head of the defendant's management division from January 20, 2014 to August 4, 2016.

The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 2,423,140 per month wage of KRW 985,650 on March 2015, KRW 2,457,510 on April 4, 2015, KRW 2,457,510 on May 5, 2015, KRW 2,416,480 on June 1, 2015, KRW 2,423,140 on July 2, 2016, KRW 2,423,140 on July 2, 2016, and KRW 34,086 on August 34, 208, and KRW 3,080 on retirement pay, KRW 26,239,454 on December 1, 2016, and KRW 28,700 on December 30, 2016.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the grounds for filing a claim for determination of the purport of the entire pleadings, the above facts are as follows: 8,710,00 won paid by the defendant on December 1, 2016 to the defendant 26,239,454 won in total from August 19, 2016 to December 1, 2016, for which 14 days have passed since the date of retirement of the plaintiff, 1,509,667 won in order from August 19, 2016 to December 1, 2016 (26,239,454 won x 20% x 20% x 105 days / 365 days / 365 days ), 26,439,454 won in proportion to the amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances paid by the defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 19,039,121 won (=26,239,454 won - 7,200,333 won) and damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum prescribed by the Labor Standards Act from December 2, 2016 to the date of full payment.

On August 2, 2016, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff was liable for wages under the condition that the plaintiff would continue to work as the defendant's employee, but the plaintiff was immediately retired, and thus the plaintiff's claim is groundless. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff as alleged by the defendant, and therefore, the defendant's letter of understanding attached to the written objection on March 3, 2017 is "a certificate of confirmation attached to the written objection."