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.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) from May 201 to November 2013, the Plaintiff placed an advertisement of KRW 255,300,000, while working for the Defendant Company.

At the time, the defendant paid 7% of the advertising amount to the advertising owner's employees as an allowance.

However, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff only KRW 6,628,50 out of KRW 17,871,000 (=255,300,000 x 7%) advertising payment for KRW 255,30,000 which the Plaintiff received, and paid to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 11,242,50.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the 11,242,50 won for the payment of the advertising payment allowance and damages for delay.

2. We examine the judgment, the plaintiff's advertisement was partially ordered by the defendant, and the defendant paid the plaintiff the relevant allowance to the plaintiff, there is no dispute between the parties.

However, according to the witness C’s partial testimony and the purport of the whole oral argument of the defendant, D (name before the opening of the name: E) appears to have been subject to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor due to suspicion of unfairly allowing an advertisement with the plaintiff. In light of this point, it is difficult to believe that the testimony of the witness D and the witness D of the first instance trial, which seems consistent with the plaintiff’s argument, is difficult.

In addition, considering the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, which are contrary to Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, and 9 (including the number of pages; hereinafter the same shall apply), the testimony of the witness F of the first instance trial, and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings:

Furthermore, only the witness C’s testimony and other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff as shown in the Plaintiff’s argument, there was an express or customary agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the advertising order allowance, and it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff received an advertisement of a total of KRW 255,30,000, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

(1) The defendant