2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation that operates a private teaching institute specialized in the appointment of kindergarten teachers, and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff around June 2016 (the contract of this case from the following date) and left the school as another private teaching institute around November 2016.

B. Article 8(3) of the instant lecture contract provides that if the Defendant fails to make a contract within the contract period due to a cause attributable to the Defendant, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for three times the down payment and two and a half times the sales amount generated during the twelve-month period, counting from the time of discontinuance of the contract.

The penalty for breach of contract is the damage compensation and the separate remedy in Article 12.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 62, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant demanded termination of the contract on Nov. 1, 2016 on the ground that it could not be understood at all at the beginning of November 2016, and the Plaintiff’s assertion suspended lectures at the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute and retired from office to another private teaching institute. The Plaintiff should pay KRW 51,875,00 of the penalty for penalty for breach of contract as stipulated under Article 12 of the instant lecture contract (= [the amount of KRW 6,00,000 x 33,505,000 which was generated from June 6, 2016) and sales amount of KRW 13,50,000, which was part of the sales amount of KRW 30,000,000 and delay damages therefrom.

2) Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act provides that an employer may not enter into a contract for liquidated damages or indemnity for nonperformance of labor contract. Considering the source of support, Defendant’s relationship, contractual terms, direction, supervision relationship, etc. acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, unlike the written evidence No. 49, the Defendant is recognized as the employee of the Plaintiff, and the contract for penalty for breach of contract of this case is null and void in violation of Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff’s claim for penalty for breach of contract is impermissible. Even if the provision on penalty for breach of contract is valid, insofar as the Defendant’s superior made a statement of sexual harassment while referring to the Defendant’s honor C (the statement at D’s investigative agency to which he