1. The defendant has the corresponding money stated in the "amount requested" column in the attached Table to the plaintiff (Appointeds) and the Appointeds.

1. The plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter "the plaintiff, etc.") and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as "the plaintiff, etc.") are employed by the defendant company operating plant and water treatment facility engineering, etc. and retired from office during the pertinent period specified in the attached Table "period of work" as stated in the attached Table. The fact that the plaintiff, etc. did not receive money from the defendant company as stated in the attached Table "amount of claim" out of the wage for the above service period does not conflict between the parties, or that the plaintiff, etc. did not receive the money from the defendant company as stated in the attached Table "amount of claim" in the attached Table No. 1 can be acknowledged by

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company is obligated to pay the plaintiff et al. wages equivalent to the corresponding amount stated in the "amount of claim" column of the attached Table to the plaintiff et al. and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from the corresponding date to the date of full payment, on the day following the expiration of 14 days from the date of retirement.

2. On the argument of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company asserts that the amount claimed by the Plaintiff, etc. is the amount before the fourth insurance was deducted, and that the said amount should be deducted.

Therefore, in principle, the obligation of the person liable to collect the income tax withheld at the same time is established when the income amount is paid, and the corresponding recipient's obligation to collect the income tax is established. Thus, the payer cannot collect and deduct the source tax in advance before the payment date of the above income amount, and the scope of income itself is the income subject to withholding, and it cannot be said that the scope of income itself is reduced to the source tax amount as a matter of course.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da23180, Sept. 23, 1994). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s wage claimed in this case is related thereto.