용역비
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.
2...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is that “14,127,740 won” of the third party judgment of the court of first instance is “13,50,000 won,” and the defendant’s counterclaim added in the trial of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the following determination as to the defendant’s counterclaim of offset, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the ground for an offset added in the trial
A. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 13,50,000 to G, H, and I, employed by the Plaintiff at the instant building on March 19, 2014, to the Plaintiff’s employees G, H, and I as wages and retirement allowances. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 13,50,000 to the Plaintiff. As seen earlier, the above two claims were set-off at the time of the Defendant’s change of set-off with the above claim for reimbursement, and the Defendant’s declaration of intent to set-off the Defendant’s claim for reimbursement and the Plaintiff’s above claim for reimbursement against the Plaintiff on June 25, 2015 was clearly delivered to the Plaintiff on July 6, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement against the service costs and the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement was retroactively extinguished within an equal amount on the date of set-off.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for service costs against the Defendant is extinguished and thus remains no longer.
B. As to this, even if the Plaintiff received wages in arrears from the Defendant, on or around June 2015, the Plaintiff filed an accusation against the Plaintiff’s representative director F on the ground of delayed payment of wages, etc., which is interpreted to the effect that G et al. received wages in arrears from the Plaintiff and returned it again to the Defendant. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff’s wage liability against G et al. was extinguished, and therefore, the Defendant did not acquire the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity equivalent to the amount of subrogated payment.