1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for partial revision as follows.

The defendant's "Defendant" in the 11th sentence shall be amended to "Plaintiff" in the second sentence of the judgment of the first instance.

8 pages 6 to 9 of the first instance judgment shall be amended as follows.

[The defendant does not dispute the details or amount of retirement allowance calculation in the first instance trial. However, this is related to the defendant's automatic claim related to the offset defense, and the burden of proof exists to the defendant who asserts the offset. Since the defendant did not submit any evidence as to the defendant's claim for retirement allowance payment order (Seoul Southern District Court 2016 tea1528), the defendant asserts that the evidence attached at the time of the application for payment order concerning the claim for retirement allowance was shipped out to the plaintiff. However, although the plaintiff is the representative director of the defendant who was the other party to the application for payment order, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff is the representative director of the company, but it is difficult to view that the plaintiff is the representative director of the company, who was the other party to the application for payment order, and

The defendant's above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.