1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).

1. The court's explanation of this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as provided in paragraph (2). Thus, the court's explanation of this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion of the appeal to be dismissed or added is that “it was sentenced, and the E’s appeal to it was dismissed, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is,” under the fourth Table of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The annexed statement of offset appropriation in the judgment of the court of first instance is replaced by the annexed statement of offset appropriation in this judgment (the annexed statement of offset appropriation in the judgment of the court of first instance reflects 300,000 won which was omitted in the annexed statement of offset appropriation in September 2005, and according to the following, the amount of unpaid benefits was added, which is recognized additionally, and the details of offset appropriation were re-calculated based on which the amount of unpaid benefits was added.). The annexed statement of the judgment of first instance in the judgment of first instance was “from October 2005 to August 201, 201” from September 11 to “from September 2005 to June 6, 2011.”

Part 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be from Part 13 to 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.

According to “(1) the salary and repayment details asserted by the Defendant (see, e.g., “the details of the salary in 2005-2008 or 2008,” among the accompanying documents of the preparatory brief dated June 24, 2020), and the salary and repayment details asserted by the Plaintiff (each of subparagraphs A-1 through 14-3-1 of the evidence), the amount that the Plaintiff did not pay out of the unpaid salary details asserted by the Defendant is the amount that the Plaintiff did not pay [the amount deducted each month from the Defendant’s salary, and the “deduction amount” in the attached sheet for offset appropriation is the amount stated.

However, as seen earlier, 300,000 won out of them was appropriated for the repayment of the instant loan in accordance with the appropriation agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, only the difference calculated by deducting 300,000 won per month that was appropriated for the repayment of the instant loan from the stated amount constitutes the unpaid wage, which is an automatic claim.

(b).