To this, it should be added that in the course of Zehavi's interrogation, it became clear that contrary to the representation made by him consistently in the lawsuit and in his affidavit, with the recent extension of the agreement between the parties, the amount of consideration was reduced to the sum of ILS 25, 000. Thus, in lines 18-23 on page 53, Zehavi testified:
"Adv. Abramov: So I'll ask you again, would you agree with me that in 2018 you went from 4 plans to 2 plans? According to what is written in the agreement?
The witness, Mr. Zehavi: I guess so.
Adv. Abramov: You will also agree with me in the request that the monetary consideration anchored in this addendum to the agreement was in the sum of ILS 25, 000.
The witness, Mr. Zehavi: I guess so."
Zehavi also testified in lines 6-8, page 54:
"Adv. Abramov: 50, 000 shekels a month, while the last agreement you signed was 25, 000 shekels, and I ask you to explain this, explain this matter.
The witness, Mr. Zehavi: I guess maybe there's a mistake here that should be asked by my lawyer."
In their summary, the plaintiffs argued that this was a reduction for health reasons, which was for a limited period of time and which ended with the end of the extension in which the amount was reduced - i.e., on March 31, 2019 (for details regarding the extension of this agreement, see paragraph 3 of the judgment). I do not find this explanation acceptable because of two - first, since it is a suppressed explanation - which was first raised in the summaries, when in the framework of his affidavit Zahavi did not relate at all to the issue of the reduction in wages, and all the more so they did not explain, and in the framework of his testimony, he did not have an explanation for the gap. Second, since the agreement in which the amount of consideration was reduced was the last agreement signed between the parties. In these circumstances, it is presumed that these provisions were the ones that continued to be in force during the period when there was no agreement between the parties. And finally, given that the plaintiffs did not present any evidence, and accordingly, after the end of the period of this agreement, they were paid a higher amount.