1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company established on September 7, 2012 and engaged in the development, production, and sales of applied programs.

B. On March 11, 2014, the Defendant entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff by setting a working division’s development department, a working division’s development department, a contract term from March 11, 2014 to September 30, 2014. From that date, the Defendant served in the Plaintiff’s development department.

C. On January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff dismissed the Defendant on grounds of assault, absence from office without permission, etc.

On April 28, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for remedy with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Du1127, Jun. 24, 2015), but was judged to be dismissed by the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission on June 24, 2015. On November 23, 2015, the Defendant filed an administrative litigation with the chairperson of the Central Labor Relations Commission (Seoul Administrative Court Decision 2015Guhap12533, the Defendant was declared to have been dismissed by filing an administrative litigation, and the appeal is pending in the appellate trial.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 16 evidence, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 4 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of a claim (to the extent of appeal);

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) is different from the goods used to make a control box for each fraternity. The goods indicated in the attached sheet that the Defendant purchased upon the Defendant’s request by refusing labor was no longer usable. The Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages equivalent to KRW 12,519,514, the value of the goods purchased by the Defendant due to the Defendant’s refusal of labor. 2) The Defendant developed a program necessary for the construction of the SPS system for the quality control of Hyundai mother Part Cooperative during the term of the labor contract (hereinafter “instant program”).

The plaintiff believed the defendant and entered into a contract for the establishment of the program in this case with the cooperation company for modern mother part, and the expiration date of the program is maximum.