1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant 130,000,000 won and this.

1. Basic facts

A. The parties’ status and summary of the instant audit and inspection 1) The Defendant is a company engaged in the business of building, repairing, remodelling, selling ships, etc. The Plaintiff is a person who worked in the Defendant’s Docking Station from November 16, 1994 to July 15, 2016. 2) The Plaintiff served as the head of the Docking block distribution department from November 25, 2013 to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was informed of the fact that the employees belonging to the block distribution department received money and entertainment from the relevant company, and commenced an audit and inspection against four employees of the block distribution department including the Plaintiff.

In addition to the plaintiff, two of the three remaining employees who were audited were resigned, and one of them was subject to three months of suspension from office.

3) The Defendant is an auditor of the Plaintiff for about eight months from October 22, 2015 to June 2016 (hereinafter “instant auditor”).

(2) On December 12, 2015, when the audit is in progress, the number of days the audit was conducted was about 19 days in total, and the audit was not conducted due to the Plaintiff’s sick leave, annual, health examination, or the Plaintiff’s refusal. (2) The Plaintiff was under the diagnosis of “opulty” at the Gneology department, which was conducted on December 12, 2015, and was under the diagnosis by the E Hospital for about three months from December 15, 2015 to March 21, 2016, and continued to receive outpatient treatment at the said hospital, and again, undergo a mental health department, such as being hospitalized at the F University Hospital as “constition to heart stress” at the F University Hospital from May 30, 2016 to June 8, 2016.

2) The Plaintiff’s period of five months or more for which the Plaintiff received the treatment under the foregoing paragraph (1) (from December 22, 2015 to June 14, 2016) is unclear how the Defendant’s personnel management system of sick leave (Employment Rules) and the Defendant’s leave of absence for sick leave are distinguished, but the period of five months is considered as “sick leave,” and the Plaintiff appears to have actually been in a state of leave of absence due to sick leave.

The plaintiff on June 30, 2016.