1. The Defendant: KRW 13,867,362 to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 15, 2016 to May 27, 2016; and

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 1998, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant Company, the recipient of the “B Headquarters Housing Facility Management Service Contract” and then succeeded to employment even after the change of the recipient of the said Service Contract into the Defendant Company, D, D, and D, D, etc.

B. Around March 23, 2015, the Defendant Company entered into a contract for the management of facilities and equipment of the headquarters B and company houses (the contract term between April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016) with the Korea Egypt Nuclear Power B headquarters in 2015. Around that time, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Plaintiff by setting the contract term from April 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015. However, on July 1, 2015, the Defendant Company notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the employment contract.

C. On July 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against the Defendant Company for unfair dismissal and unfair labor practices (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Du434, 2015No40 (merger)) with the Gyeongbuk District Labor Relations Commission, and on September 11, 2015, “the settlement between the Defendant Company and the following” refers to “the settlement between the Defendant Company:

The protocol of compromise has been established and has been drawn up.

Reconciliation Clause

1. The instant parties conclude an employment contract during a period from October 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016, and wages shall be governed by two salaries of the Technology Institute.

2. A trade union shall immediately suspend activities of an organization, such as posting a banner;

3. The parties to the instant case do not raise any objection under the Civil Criminal and Labor Relations Act on the termination of their labor relations in the future.

The Defendant Company did not have concluded an employment contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff under the provisions of the reconciliation agreement of this case.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, entry of Eul's 2, 3, and 4, and purport of whole pleading

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the Defendant Company was obligated to conclude a labor contract with the Plaintiff under Article 1(1) of the instant reconciliation clause, and the said obligation is upon the lapse of March 31, 2016, which is the termination date of the labor contract under paragraph (1) of the said Article.