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

A. On August 2010, the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff agreed to perform the duties, such as automobile maintenance, office work, etc., and receive KRW 3,000,000 each month from the Defendant and the Defendant’s CIndustrial Company (hereinafter “instant industrial company”); and (b) according to the agreement, the Plaintiff served for the instant industrial company for 71 months from September 1, 2010 to August 4, 2016; (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 217,00,000 (= KRW 3,00,000 x 71 months) and delay damages.

B. On the other hand, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into an agreement as alleged above on August 2010, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit without further review as to the remainder.

2. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. From January 1, 2011 to August 4, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 103,559,000 for wage and allowances reported as tax during the pertinent period, and delay damages for such amount.

B. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 10, the plaintiff was registered with the employment insurance of the industrial company of this case for most of the period from January 1, 2011 to August 5, 2016, and the fact that the defendant reported the plaintiff's employment income at the tax office is recognized.

However, the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by integrating the overall purport of arguments in the statements Nos. 8, 1, 2, and 1, i.e., the plaintiff operated the industrial company of this case together with the defendant while living together with the defendant from 2011 to 2016. The defendant cannot be deemed to have provided labor in the industrial company of this case in a subordinate relationship with the plaintiff. ② The defendant was in a de facto marital relationship.