1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2,200,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from March 20, 2013.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport (including the absence of any dispute) of the entire pleadings in Gap evidence No. 1’s written argument as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff was employed as an employee of the defendant at the liquor wholesaler and retired around March 4, 2013, the plaintiff was paid wages equivalent to KRW 2,200,000 per month from the defendant around the time of retirement as above, the defendant paid the employee’s wages on the 10th day of the following month, and the fact that the plaintiff was not paid wages for February 2013 from the defendant.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 2,200,000 for February 2013 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 20, 2013 to the day of complete payment, which is the 14th day following the Plaintiff’s retirement date, unless there are other special circumstances.

2. The defendant's defense is a defense that the plaintiff's above claim against the defendant had already been extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and under Article 49 of the Labor Standards Act, the period of extinctive prescription of wage claim is three years, and the defendant paid the defendant's wages to his employees on the 10th day of the following month, as acknowledged earlier. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the non-paid wage claim against the defendant on February 2013 should begin on March 11, 2013, and it is evident in the record that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on March 4, 2016, before the expiration of three years from the lawsuit of this case, and thus, the extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's above wage claim against the defendant against the defendant is not complete. Therefore, the defendant's above defense is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked by accepting the plaintiff's appeal and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked,