임금
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 15,678,810 for the Defendant, ② unpaid statutory allowances (limited to extended night working allowances; hereinafter “legal allowances”) KRW 17,665,695, ③ contingent allowances KRW 60 million, ④ unpaid 25,981,700 out of the expenses paid on behalf of the Defendant, ⑤ interest rate of KRW 12,107,508 for the above expenses and KRW 7 million for loans.
The first instance court accepted only the claim for unpaid wages, and dismissed all the remaining claims.
In this regard, only the Plaintiff appealed to the portion of KRW 43,981,700, which is the total of KRW 18,000,000 (including loans; hereinafter the same shall apply) and KRW 25,981,70,00, which is the sum of the unpaid legal allowances and the amount of performance. Accordingly, only this portion of the appeal is subject to the judgment of this Court.
2. The reasoning of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) the relevant part of the first instance judgment (paragraph (1) is identical to the corresponding part of the first instance judgment, except for the following addition to the third 6th thma of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence
“The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the ground that “the Defendant received KRW 27 million from the Plaintiff as the expense for obtaining a license, and caused the Plaintiff to pay KRW 25,981,700 for the instant construction expense instead of the instant construction expense, and acquired it by fraud by failing to settle accounts.” However, on September 23, 2015, the lower court rendered a non-prosecution decision on the charge of suspicion (Evidence 2015No. 14040, No. 37).”
3. The parties' assertion
A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid statutory allowance of KRW 17,665,695 to March 2013 from September 2012 to March 2013. In addition, the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff that “3.5% of the total construction price shall be paid as a performance payment.” As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the performance payment under the said agreement to the Plaintiff.
3. From March 2013 to May 2013, the Plaintiff is the instant construction project.