beta
Text
1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amounts are the amount ordered to be paid additionally.
Reasons
1. The first instance court, within the scope of the judgment of this Court, sentenced to the dismissal of the part concerning the claim for interest on loans among the principal lawsuit of this case, and since the plaintiff did not appeal, the above part concerning the claim is not included in the scope
2. Basic facts and the grounds for this part of the parties’ assertion are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding “each video of No. 18-1 or No. 12” to the grounds for recognition of No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of
3. Determination
A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment regarding the principal claim and counterclaim loans is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
B. The Defendant’s assertion and determination as to the claim for unpaid wages in this lawsuit are as follows: (a) the Defendant led to the confession that there was unpaid wages as alleged by the Plaintiff at the first date of pleading on November 26, 2018 as stated by the Plaintiff on the date of pleading on November 26, 2018; (b) but at the trial, the Plaintiff was determined as 3,00,000 won under the condition that the Plaintiff worked at 4 p.m. during the period from January 2, 2017 to July 5, 2017 and worked at 9 p.m. during the period from 3,000 p.m. and the sum of the annual salary in 2017 is KRW 18,480,000, and between February 28, 2017 to July 24, 2017, the Defendant asserts that the confession was revoked due to an error that the above confession was in violation of the truth, and there was no other evidence that the Defendant’s deposit was made from 2016.
Therefore, this part of the defendant.