Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff operates Taekwondo Sports Center in the name of D from Ma-gu, Manam-si C and 2, and the Defendant served as a criminal in the above Taekwondo Sports Center from September 30, 2013 to September 30, 2014.

B. On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant on September 30, 2013 with the term of the employment contract, which covers KRW 1.3 million from September 30, 2013 to September 30, 2015, monthly salary of KRW 1.3 million from September 30, 2015, and special down payment at the time of working for more than two years (payment in installments in the amount of KRW 500,000 per month), and the said special down payment is to return to the Plaintiff if the Defendant fails to perform his/her duties for two years or is removed from office, and is subject to criticism as an instructor who educates personality as a ground for dismissal (excluding absence from office, crime, damage to workplace image).

C. On September 30, 2014, the Defendant retired on the ground that he damaged the image of the workplace, and the Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from the obligation to return the already paid special down payment under the condition that the Defendant did not raise any objection against the retirement allowance.

When the Plaintiff came to know of the fact that the Defendant served as a criminal at the same Neow inducement place after his/her retirement, on October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was sustaining an image at the Plaintiff’s workplace, and revoked the Defendant’s exemption from the obligation to return the special contract deposit, and then sent to the Defendant a certificate of content verifying the content of seeking the payment of KRW 5.5 million already paid special

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, at the time of the Defendant’s retirement, exempted the Defendant from the special contract amount of KRW 5,500,000,000, which the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff’s workplace under the condition that the Defendant would not damage the images of the Plaintiff’s workplace. The Defendant served in the same Dong Nein Private Teaching Institute, a competitor at the Plaintiff’s workplace, and this was in violation of the principle of prohibition of competition, thereby damaging the Plaintiff’s workplace’s