임금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: the third party 11.2 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the "decision on the claim for unjust enrichment" hereinafter) is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the part concerning the claim for unjust enrichment is dismissed as follows; therefore, in full view of the purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 3 and 4 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the attorney-at-law affiliated with the defendant individually received the defendant's corporate name and paid the fees, etc. or the expenses necessary for the lawsuit, and the balance of the above account is entirely transferred to the personal account of the attorney-at-law at a certain time. Accordingly, according to these facts, the defendant law firm is operated separately by the method of calculating the profits and expenses of the attorneys-at-law.
In addition, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff directly borrowed the cost of establishing the Defendant’s branch office from another attorney affiliated with the Defendant, and if the Plaintiff agreed to receive only remuneration from the Defendant, the Defendant’s establishment cost of the Defendant’s branch is not attributable to the Plaintiff. As such, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s law firm ultimately borne the
Therefore, the facts of recognition alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant obtained unjust enrichment equivalent to the above 89,200,000 won which the Defendant reported as the Plaintiff’s earned income, and thereby, incurred a loss equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
We cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.
2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.