1. Within the scope of property inherited from Non-Party G (H)’s G,

A. The plaintiff A, 1) the defendant C is 7,936,452 won, 2).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, under employment by G engaged in a certified judicial scrivener business, provided labor for the pertinent period indicated in the following table service period, but did not receive the relevant wages and retirement allowances stated in the item column of overdue payment in the same table.

Plaintiff

The total amount of the money and other valuables in arrears with working period (on October 2018), retirement pay A. 3. - October 2, 2018. 2,032,258. 21,777,100 23,809, 358 B B, 277, 18. 1,277, 4196,651, 607, 7, 929,026, 026

B. On October 18, 2018, G: (a) died on October 18, 2018, Defendant C and Defendant D, E, and F, a spouse, inherited the deceased’s property.

The Defendants reported qualified acceptance and received a ruling of December 12, 2018 from the Incheon Family Court as the Incheon Family Court 2018-Ma11057 to accept it. On April 17, 2019, the Defendants received a decision of correction to add wages and retirement allowances to the Plaintiffs as a small property among the inherited property list.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. According to the above facts of determination, the amount of wages and retirement allowances within the scope of the property inherited from the network G; (1) the Defendant C is the Plaintiff; (2) the Defendant C is the Plaintiff 7,936,452 won (=23,809,358 x 3/9); (3) the Defendant D, E, and F are each 5,290,968 won (=23,809,358 x 2/9); and (2) the amount of delay damages at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from November 2, 2018 to the date of full payment; (2) the Defendant is the Plaintiff; (3) the amount of delay damages at the rate of 2,643,08 won (7,929,0263/9); (3) the amount of delay damages at the rate of 1,762,05 won per annum; and (4) the amount of delay damages at each of the Labor Standards Act from the date of full payment.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants of this case are justified.