The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the judgment of the court below that judged otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, even though the Defendant paid all wages of F, G, and K (hereinafter “F”) among six workers.

2. The first instance court’s judgment was clearly erroneous when it was intended to re-examine the first instance court’s judgment and subsequently determine it ex post facto, although there was no objective reason to affect the formation of a documentary evidence in the process of the trial.

There should be reasonable grounds to deem that the argument leading to the fact-finding is remarkably unfair due to the violation of logical and empirical rules, etc., and without such exceptional circumstances, the judgment on the fact-finding of the first instance court should not be reversed without permission (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do18031, Mar. 22, 2017). The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in the lower court. The lower court asserted that, in its summary of evidence, the Defendant agreed that “the Defendant shall settle the wages of three persons, such as F, with three persons, including H and F, at KRW 6.1 million.” However, the Defendant is recognized to have remitted H around November 20, 2018, KRW 5 million, and KRW 1.1 million, respectively, to F.

However, the witness H testified that the Defendant, without specifying the employees, remitted the amount of five million won to the employees in arrears, and that the witness H of the first instance trial divided the above five million won to six workers including F, etc. The witness testified that the unpaid wage was the remainder of the total unpaid wage, excluding five million won divided to the employees.

Witness

H, E, G, and F testified that there was no agreement on the settlement of wages between the Defendant and the Defendant, and the witness F is 1.9 million won remitted from the Defendant.