Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Defendant is a person who operates the TPPIC (hereinafter “instant private teaching institute”) under the mutual interest of “BFA” in Seongbuk-gu, Changwon-si. The Plaintiff is a person who gives earth and sand at the instant private teaching institute from March 1, 2011 to February 28, 2017.

B. From March 1, 2011 to June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff received monthly remuneration by multiplying a certain amount per lecture hour by a certain amount. From July 1, 2014, from 60 students and less than 60 students, the Plaintiff 40% of the students, the Defendant 60% of the students, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant 50% of the students’ tuition fees for more than 61 students.

(hereinafter) The method of dividing tuition fees according to the aforementioned student’s ratio (hereinafter “ratio System”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid monthly salary for the remainder after calculating tuition fees according to the ratio system from July 2014 to February 2017, after deducting money equivalent to 3.3% of income tax and money related to insurance, such as money and national pension contributions.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 to 32, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant brought a lawsuit seeking damages on the ground that some of the mutual aid funds related to the insurance premiums was embezzled from July 2014 to February 2017, and added part of the income tax-related mutual aid funds during the same period’s benefits, and the Defendant’s claim for damages on the ground that some of the said mutual aid funds was embezzled by the Defendant. The Defendant asserted that the foregoing change in the claim should not be allowed as it is not recognized as the identity of the claim basis.

The plaintiff's above claims can be recognized as having the identity of the claim basis in order to resolve disputes over the same economic interest between the plaintiff and the defendant with respect to the payment of the defendant's benefits to the plaintiff, which can be seen as having the same living situation.

Therefore, the defendant.