2. The reasons why the party’s alleged party members should explain this part are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of the part of “fora, from one to another,” the part of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 5, No. 5, No. 1, and No. 420, the same shall apply.

3. The reasons for this part of the decision of this court are as follows: Gap evidence No. 17 and Eul witness F's testimony are added to evidence which is insufficient to prove that the defendant received wages unfairly due to the false attendance at work, and the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance No. 3.b.

The following determination as to the defendant's argument and No. 3. F.

G. Each judgment on the defendant's counterclaim extended in the trial between the parties is added, and No. 3. H. 3. H.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

o. The Defendant’s additional determination as to the Defendant’s assertion refers to the Plaintiff’s loss incurred by purchasing alcoholic beverages to a lot department store when the Plaintiff’s store is operated in the form of direct payment at the store store. The sales store directly operated by the department store at a price lower than normal cost. From October 1, 2012 to October 1, 2012, the Plaintiff leased a store from the lot department store to sell alcoholic beverages directly to the Plaintiff.