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 reasons why the court accepted the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the modification or addition of the corresponding parts as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is altered or added, is 16,50,000 won out of the total amount of 184,80,000,000 won [16,50,000 won for retirement pay of 16,50,000 won for the above period [3,50,000 won for wage of 168,500,000 won x 48 months]. Thus, the remaining part of the judgment of the court of first instance is 168,30,000 won (=184,80,000 won - 16,50,000 won) is converted as follows.
From April 1, 2012, the Defendant is still under business suspension. However, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff total of KRW 144,538,33 [the total amount of wages for the said period = KRW 77,00,000 for 22 months from June 1, 2010 to March 31, 2012 [the amount of KRW 3,50,000 x 22 months] from April 1, 2012 to March 17, 2014 [the amount of KRW 57,738,333 (3,50,000 x 0.7 x 0.7 x 23 months x 17 x 17 x 20.38 x 3605 x 308 x 305 x 3608 x 305 x 3608 x 405 x 508 x 17.4 x 505 x ].3638 .5 x .5 .5 x .5 x .4 .5 x .5 .5 .”
The following is added to H’s statement (Evidence 21-7) dated April 14, 2014, stating that “the Plaintiff had worked as an employee belonging to the Defendant for KRW 1.5 million from April 20, 2010 to March 17, 2014,” and the written verdict of the first instance court (Evidence 21-14) dated June 26, 2014, which included the following: (a) the written protocol of the respondent (Evidence 21-7); and (b) the written protocol of the suspect examination of the Defendant (Evidence 21-14) of the first instance judgment of June 26, 2014 (No. 21-14).
(7) The fact that H stated “the Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant”) at an investigative agency may be subject to administrative sanctions, such as revocation of a license, if the Defendant borrowed the Plaintiff’s construction engineer qualification in the name of the Plaintiff.