1. The counterclaim Defendant: 15,00,000 won to the counterclaim and 5% per annum from September 21, 2016 to July 6, 2017.

1. Determination on the claim for benefit payment

A. The counterclaim’s assertion in the counterclaim is that, upon being registered as a director of the counterclaim Defendant on March 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) ordered construction works under the name of the counterclaim Defendant; and (b) intended to manage the construction site; and (c) received KRW 5 million monthly wage from March 2015 to April 2016; and (d) served between 12 months from April 2016. The counterclaim Defendant claimed that he/she sought payment of the remainder payment, since he/she did not pay KRW 5 million to the counterclaim with the payment of the benefits.

B. Therefore, we examine whether the Counterclaim Plaintiff would receive benefits of KRW 500,000 per month while serving as the employee of the Counterclaim Defendant.

The respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 6-1 and 2 and the testimony of the witness C as shown in the above argument of the Counterclaim Plaintiff are insufficient to recognize the above argument without reliance on the belief, and only the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 7 are insufficient to acknowledge the above argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number number), namely, the Lessee appears to have been in a relationship between giving orders to work and performing the profit by having been registered as a director of the Counterclaim Defendant and dividing a certain portion of the profit with the Counterclaim Defendant. On the other hand, the Lessee was registered as a director of the Counterclaim Defendant, and there is no objective data (such as the four-party insurance subscription details) indicating that the Lessee was an employee of the Counterclaim Defendant, and 5 million won, claiming that the Lessee received the Counterclaim as the benefit title, there is no data that can be deemed to have been actually paid as the benefit title. In light of the above, it is difficult to recognize that the Lessee was to have received the benefit while working as the employee of the Counterclaim Defendant.

Therefore, the above argument of the Lessee is rejected.

2. The request for a loan.