1. In accordance with the claim for counterclaim due to embezzlement that was filed by the court prior to the remanding of the case, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. At the first instance court, the Plaintiff, A, and C filed an appeal against the Defendant for the payment of each of the unpaid wages (Plaintiff 18,947,100 won, A1,287,410 won, C12,984,910 won, and damages for delay) and each of the aforementioned claims against the Defendant. On November 2, 2016, the first instance court rendered a judgment in favor of the Defendant on the part of the first instance court ordering the Defendant to pay the amount claimed for the wages of the Plaintiff, A, and C and the damages for delay (part of the claim for delay damages) and the damages for delay thereof (part of the claim for delay damages). The Defendant revoked the first instance judgment and sought to dismiss the claim of the Plaintiff, A, and C, while continuing the appellate court, the Defendant claimed for the payment of damages for embezzlement against the Plaintiff and the damages for delay amounting to KRW 50,00,000,000,000 for business losses arising from the retirement of the Plaintiff from A, C, and the Plaintiff’s collective retirement (=).

However, on August 24, 2017, this court rendered a judgment dismissing all the defendant's appeal and the defendant's counterclaim claim.

3. The Defendant filed an appeal against the judgment before remanding the case against the Plaintiff. However, with respect to the part of the Plaintiff’s claim as to the Plaintiff’s main claim, the grounds for appeal were not stated in the petition of appeal, and the appellate brief did not state the grounds

On September 13, 2018, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment that reversed the above part and remanded it to this court, and dismissed the Defendant’s remaining appeal. In so doing, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment that determined that the part against the Defendant regarding the claim for damages caused by embezzlement exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In accordance with the scope of the trial of this Court, each of the principal claims and counterclaims filed by the court prior to the remanding of the plaintiff, Gap, C, and the defendant.