1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Party’s assertion as to the cause of claim;

A. The Plaintiff’s husband C provided labor to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid KRW 4 million per month to the Plaintiff.

However, the Defendant did not pay KRW 8 million as of July and August 2016, and KRW 7,933,246 as retirement allowance to be paid by the Plaintiff upon retirement.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total sum of KRW 15,933,246 ( KRW 7,933,246) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion on the counterclaim was received from the Defendant from October 2014 to June 2016 the amount between KRW 3.5 million per month and KRW 6 million per month as wages.

The detailed details are as follows:

From October to April 2015, 2014: KRW 3.5 million per month (total KRW 24.5 million to August 4, 2015): KRW 4 million per month (total KRW 16 million to September 1, 2015): From October 2015 to June 9, 2016: KRW 4 million per month (total KRW 6 million to June 6 million): The Plaintiff received total KRW 4 million (total KRW 3.6 million) from June 2015 to June 9, 2016, although there is no legal ground to receive wages due to the lack of the Plaintiff’s provision of labor to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to return KRW 82.5 million to the Defendant as unjust enrichment.

2. Determination

A. Facts 1) The Plaintiff’s husband C invested KRW 200 million or KRW 400 million to the Defendant (the Plaintiff asserts that KRW 400 million is KRW, and the Defendant asserts that KRW 200 million is KRW.

(2) On September 15, 2014, the Plaintiff was registered as the Defendant’s director from around September 15, 2014, and according to the agreement between the Plaintiff (or C) and the Defendant, the Plaintiff received KRW 3.5 million or KRW 6 million every month from around October 2014 to June 2016 as a total of KRW 82.5 million.

3) There is no fact that the Plaintiff provided labor to the Defendant. [In the absence of any dispute, Gap 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. The plaintiff of the first claim for judgment has provided labor to the defendant.