1. The Defendants jointly share the Plaintiff A with KRW 7,696,830, KRW 9,955,272, KRW 9,051,130, and KRW 9,051,130.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiffs concluded an employment contract with Defendant E Co., Ltd. (formerly: G Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant Company”), and retired from office while serving in the Defendant Company, but did not receive each retirement pay as stated in the order.

B. Defendant F, the representative director of the Defendant Company, was subject to criminal punishment of fines due to criminal facts such as the failure to pay retirement allowances to Plaintiffs A, B, and C.

C. On May 12, 2014, Defendant F drafted and implemented an agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Plaintiffs on the following grounds: (a) “Defendant Company shall pay retirement allowances, etc. to the Plaintiffs by the end of December 2014; and (b) Defendant F shall promise to pay retirement allowances if the Defendant Company is unable to pay by the payment date.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties or do not clearly dispute between them, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 7, 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiffs the retirement pay and each of the above amounts as stated in the order, calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 1, 2015 to May 13, 2015, the date of the last delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from May 14, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and the damages for delay calculated at the statutory rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2015 to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The summary of the defendants' assertion 1) Since the plaintiff D was not present at the time of the preparation of the agreement of this case, the effect of the agreement as stated in the agreement of this case does not reach the plaintiff D, so the plaintiff D's claim of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of plaintiff D is without merit (affirmative. 2) even if it also affects the plaintiff D's agreement.