2. On September 1, 2013, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) was written on the 11st page “(2) between the Defendant corporation and the Defendant corporation,” and the Plaintiff was written on September 1, 2012.

Not more than 10 pages 10,000 of the first instance judgment. The "whether to deduct interim revenues" shall be applied as follows.

C. 1) Whether interim income is deducted from an employer’s wages paid to a dismissed worker who worked in another workplace during the period of dismissal falls under the profit accrued from the discharge of his/her obligation provided for in Article 538(2) of the Civil Act. Thus, the employer can deduct the above profit when paying the wages to the worker during the period of dismissal. However, Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act provides that the employer shall pay the worker an allowance of not less than 70/10 of average wages during the period of suspension when the worker suspends his/her business due to a cause attributable to the employer who intends to guarantee the basic livelihood of the worker. "Suspension of business" under this provision includes cases where the worker cannot provide his/her labor against his/her will despite having intended to provide his/her labor pursuant to the labor contract. Thus, the amount within the scope of the business suspension allowance provided for in Article 46 of the Labor Standards Act among the wages that the worker is entitled to receive cannot be deducted from the interim income, and the amount exceeding the business suspension allowance should be deducted from the intermediate income (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da1592, supra).