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. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the alteration of part of the judgment of the first instance as follows. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

In the third bottom of the judgment of the court of first instance, it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff embezzled public funds after the preparation of the second letter). Under the following, the Plaintiff asserts that “The wages in arrears which were either deducted or not received from every month’s monthly wages for the above three million won shall be paid to 5,573,524 won, which were in the first instance trial, and the Plaintiff shall, if offset or deduction with the above bonds, instead receive KRW 2,573,524.”

First, as to whether the wages in arrears that the plaintiff did not receive falls under KRW 5,573,524, the health of the defendant is able to recognize the fact that the defendant delayed payment of KRW 1,487,252 against the plaintiff according to the Gap evidence 6.

However, in the case of the remaining claims for overdue wages, it is not sufficient to recognize only the descriptions of Gap evidence 7 and Nos. 8-1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Next, it is examined whether the defendant's claim can be offset against the above overdue wages of KRW 1,487,252.

If the liability has been caused by an intentional tort, the obligor cannot set up against the obligee any set-off.

(Article 496 of the Civil Act). The purport of Article 496 of the Civil Act is to prevent the occurrence of a tort by intention, and to prevent the occurrence of a tort by intention as well as the victim of an intentional tort, since it does not conform to the concept of social justice that the victim is unable to receive the actual repayment due to the exercise of the offset right by the tortfeasor, if the offset against the damage claim by intention is allowed, even the person who committed the illegal act would not be actually paid the damages by intention.