beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where the part of Paragraph (3) (No. 3, No. 10, No. 8, No. 4) of the judgment of the court of first instance (No. 3, No. 8, the judgment of the court of first instance) is stated
2. Parts of the aftermath [the part of paragraph (3) of the judgment of the court of first instance (Articles 3, 10, 8, and 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance)]
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 1,218,420 from the Defendant for the year 2010.
(2) The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 18,918,680, total business expenses disbursed between March 3, 2010 and November 28, 201, while working for the Defendant.
(3) On April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an annual salary contract with the Defendant with the content that if the sales of Suwon Apartments starts, the Plaintiff would make two times the annual salary from the Defendant to be paid each month. On October 2010, the Suwon City approved an application for approval for the sale of the above apartment units (approval for the invitation of occupants) around the end of October 2010.
Therefore, from November 201 to November 201, 201, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff via a storm the sum of KRW 137,80,000 (=63,600,000 x 2/12 x 13 months) calculated by dividing the Plaintiff’s annual salary of KRW 63,60,000 by 12.
B. (1) The fact that the Defendant did not pay KRW 1,218,420 to the Plaintiff for the portion of the claim for unpaid refund in the year 2010 is not a dispute between the parties.
(2) The portion of the claim for reimbursement of business expenses (A) is admissible as evidence consistent with the facts that the Plaintiff paid the business expenses as alleged during the service period, but failed to receive the refund from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who were the actual operator of the Defendant, from February 2, 2010 to May 4, 2011, unpaid business expenses, stating the signature of the JJ.