1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 26950,000 and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from June 26, 2013 to February 11, 2015.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion was not paid 2,6950,000 won [the amount calculated by deducting 2,1050,000 won received from the defendant from the 48 million won to August 31, 2010 (the monthly wage of 200,000 won x 24 months)] among the wages of 48 million won from September 1, 2008 to August 31, 2010.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff paid all wages (the monthly wage in 2008, the daily wage in 2009, and the daily wage in 2010) to the Plaintiff.

Even if it is not so, the Plaintiff’s claim for wages had expired three years (monthly pay) or one year (daily pay) after the extinctive prescription period.

2. The Defendant paid the unpaid wages claimed by the Plaintiff in full, taking into account the facts and circumstances as indicated below, including Gap's 1 to 8, Eul's 1, witness D, E, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

It is difficult to recognize that the above wage claim has expired by prescription.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 26950,000 and the delay damages therefor (the payment period can be deemed to have been postponed until the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, but the delay damages shall be calculated from the day after the date of delivery of the copy of the instant complaint to the Defendant).

The Plaintiff served from around 2003 or from around 2004 to February 2013 (excluding, however, the period from around September 201 to April 201 when entering the Republic of Korea after compulsory departure) in the C (Transfer Center) of the Defendant’s operation.

B. The Plaintiff received wages on a daily or monthly basis during the period of service, and during the year 2008, the monthly salary system (which was not determined on a monthly basis, but on a monthly basis, on a monthly average of 20,000 won to 23 days from the 20th day to the 100,000 won per month, and that the monthly fixed amount should be paid).

The plaintiff was a monthly salary until September 2010, which was enforced by the time of compulsory departure, and the defendant was a monthly salary system for only one year.

(b) in paragraph (3);