1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence No. 1 and No. 12-2, the plaintiff and plaintiff Eul worked as each employee at the "D" research institute operated by the defendant and retired on November 7, 201.

2. The parties' assertion

A. (1) From April 1, 2003 to November 7, 2011, Plaintiff A was an employee of the “D” research institute operated by the Defendant. However, Plaintiff A did not receive KRW 36,448,261 in total of KRW 15,941,11 in arrears and retirement pay 20,507,150 in arrears.

(2) From April 1, 2006 to November 7, 2011, Plaintiff B served as an employee at the pertinent research institute. However, Plaintiff B did not receive KRW 81,643,935,935 in total, including the wages in arrears 61,967,965 and retirement allowances 1,675,970.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is different from the facts, and even if the Plaintiffs worked in the Defendant’s research institute for some of their assertion, the Plaintiffs’ above wage payment claim expired by prescription.

3. Determination

A. Examining the issue of whether the Plaintiffs’ claim to pay wages has expired by prescription, Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act provides that “The statute of limitations expires if a claim to pay wages under this Act has not been exercised for three years,” and even according to the Plaintiffs’ claim itself, the Plaintiffs were set aside on November 7, 201, and the instant payment order claiming payment of wages was filed on April 16, 201 when three years have elapsed since it is apparent in the record that the instant payment order claiming payment of wages was filed on April 16, 2015. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is justified.

B. On May 9, 2012, the Plaintiffs submitted a petition to the Ministry of Employment and Labor for the Defendant’s payment of wages, and the Defendant immediately withdrawn the petition to the Plaintiffs on May 11, 2012, thereby withdrawing the petition, and Plaintiff A again made the petition on July 12, 2013 due to the Defendant’s failure to comply with the commitment.