2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Defendant, under the name of Nonparty C, is operating the E Fisheries Partnership (hereinafter “E”) aimed at carrying out a new seed and seedling-related business in the name of Nonparty C, who is a child, while operating a new seed and seedling-related business.

B. On December 26, 2016, from around December 26, 2016 to June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff performed the work of managing and assisting the salvine in D.

[Ground for recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap 3, 7, and 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff 15,394,200 won [=3,078,840 won + 102, 628 won x 30 days x 30 days x 5 months, and the unit price of ordinary wage] of the Plaintiff’s business profit to obtain the Plaintiff’s work at D when it comes to obtain the Plaintiff’s work at D, and the Plaintiff believed the horse and performed the work at D without a leave of absence for about five months from December 26, 2016 to June 2, 2017, but did not receive the payment for the work. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the compensation for damages or the return of unjust enrichment by tort.

B. Determination 1) First of all, as to the claim for damages arising from a tort, as to whether the Defendant made a false statement that the Plaintiff would distribute 30% of the business profit to the Plaintiff in return for the Plaintiff’s work in order to exploit the Plaintiff’s labor force, the Plaintiff’s statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, which appears to correspond thereto, is difficult to believe as it is in view of the developments leading up to the preparation and the relationship between the originator and the instant parties, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Rather, in full view of the purport of the argument in the statement No. 3, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant, but the prosecutor in charge of investigating the instant case can only recognize the fact that the Defendant was subject to a disposition that was unsuspected against the Defendant on December 28, 2017, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.