1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. According to the overall purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and 7-2 of judgment as to the cause of the claim, and the result of the commission of document forwarding to the Goyangyang Branch Office of the first instance court to the defendant and the whole pleadings, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant and provided labor from November 18, 2016 to February 17, 2017, and did not receive wages of KRW 1,80,000. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above wages and delay damages, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant alleged that there was no employment of the plaintiff, but it is not sufficient to recognize each entry of Eul 1 to 4 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The defendant asserts that since the business owner during the period for which the plaintiff asserts that he provided labor is C, D is not related to the plaintiff, but the defendant of the lawsuit in this case is not C, and therefore the business owner is changed due to B, it cannot be said that the defendant's obligation to pay wages is lost.

C. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff embezzled public funds by withdrawing KRW 3,600,600 on February 15, 2017.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 6 and the whole pleadings, the facts of transfer from the defendant's account to the plaintiff's account may be acknowledged. However, the above facts of recognition alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff embezzled the defendant's corporate corporate corporate corporate corporate corporate corporate corporate corporate corporate funds. Rather, according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 7-1 and 2 and the whole arguments, in the case where Eul's representative's director D files a complaint against the plaintiff through embezzlement, the plaintiff can only be recognized as having received a non-prosecution disposition on December 6, 2017 with no suspicion of suspicion (defluence of evidence).

3. Accordingly, the Defendant’s wages of KRW 1,800,000, which are unpaid to the Plaintiff and the following day after 14 days from the date of retirement of the Plaintiff.