손해배상(기)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 14, 2014, the Plaintiff is a company operating the Pitice Center that provides health and c and other services at the Pitice C and 7 level, and the Defendant entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff on July 14, 2014 with the said Pitice Center to serve as a Titner.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s written contract of employment that was entered into on July 14, 2014: (a) the monthly payment date is the 25th day of each month; (b) the term of the employment contract is from July 14, 2014 to July 13, 2015; and (c) if the Defendant did not have at least 2/3 of the number of business after the registration of Pst (Personing, hereinafter “Pst”) the fees that the Plaintiff received from the Plaintiff are to be returned to the Plaintiff.
C. On July 25, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 725,80,00 to the Defendant for advance payment, KRW 973,067, and KRW 3,095,853 to the Defendant for advance payment, respectively, on August 25, 2014.
By September 25, 2014, the defendant worked at the Pice Center and did not work at the aforesaid Center on the following day.
E. The Plaintiff’s customers, such as D and E, who were going to take the PT lessons from the Defendant, terminated the PT lessons contract with the Plaintiff on the ground of the change of the twitner, who did not work at the PTS center, and the Plaintiff refunded the remaining amount to the said customers.
F. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Suwon District Court to issue a seizure and collection order against the Defendant’s deposit claims against the Defendant’s National Bank on March 4, 2016 upon the judgment of the provisional execution sentence of the first instance court, and received KRW 3,020,237 on March 14, 2016.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 11, 13 to 19, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above facts in determining the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant received part of the cost of the PT joining fee from the Plaintiff on the condition that the Defendant would take up not less than 2/3 of the PT number business in charge, and the Defendant did not proceed with not less than 2/3 of the PT lectures.