A. The defendant is the plaintiff's wife C's South-North partner.

B. The Defendant was operating a manufacturer of machinery, etc. (hereinafter “instant manufacturer”) with the trade name of E from e in lified City D, but when it was difficult to operate the said manufacturer due to cancer, the Plaintiff agreed to operate the instant manufacturer on behalf of the Defendant from August 2010 to pay KRW 2 million per month as the Plaintiff’s salary.

C. Since then, financial standing of the instant private company was difficult, the benefits initially paid to the Defendant was not paid from September 2012, 2012.

On October 5, 2013, the Plaintiff retired from the operation of the instant business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 12-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the benefits that the Plaintiff was not paid to the Plaintiff from September 2012 to September 2013.

(1) The Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim because the Plaintiff was in breach of trust and embezzlement while operating the instant business, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it as seen thereafter).

(1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the increase in the Plaintiff’s salary and determination 1) were examined as to whether the Defendant agreed to increase the Plaintiff’s salary in KRW 3.5 million per month from May 2012 to August 2012, and accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3.5 million per month from September 2012 to September 2013, and the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 45.5 million per month from September 2012, and accordingly, the Plaintiff claimed the payment of the above amount. (A) As to whether the Plaintiff agreed to increase the Plaintiff’s salary in KRW 3.5 million per month, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 2 (a) as consistent therewith is a content-certified mail sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

A) The entry of the evidence No. 11 is difficult to believe, and it is not sufficient to acknowledge it solely by the entry of the evidence No. 11, and there is no other evidence to prove it (No. 7 and 15).