1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,227,33 as well as 20% per annum from March 2, 2013 to the day of full payment.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s retirement from July 4, 200 to the Defendant Company, who provided labor under employment by the Defendant Company on February 15, 2013, and the Defendant Company did not pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 50,227,333.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 50,227,33 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under Article 37 (1) of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act from March 2, 2013 to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant company's assertion as to the defendant company's assertion argues that since the plaintiff used the defendant company's illegally reproduced CAD software for personal purposes while working in the defendant company, which is the software developer, and was exposed to control, thereby causing the defendant company to purchase the above software in the amount of 4.6 million won which is unrelated to the defendant company's business, the above amount should be offset against the wages and retirement allowances to be paid to the plaintiff.

According to the main sentence of Article 42(1) of the Labor Standards Act, since wages are paid in full directly to workers in currency, it is in principle that an employer does not offset the worker's claim against the worker's wage with the claim that the employer has against the worker. This is to protect the worker in an economic and social subordinate relationship, and the same holds true since the worker's retirement allowance that

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da90760 Decided May 20, 2010, etc.). Therefore, the Defendant’s damage claim against the Plaintiff cannot be offset against the Plaintiff’s wage and retirement allowance claim. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion needs to be examined as to the existence or scope of the above damage claim.