1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 43,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from January 7, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant running D in Gangnam-gu Seoul on May 2003, and worked from May 1, 2003 to August 31, 2013.

B. From May 2003 to August 1, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 1,000,000 per month to the Plaintiff in addition to the Plaintiff’s pay.

C. On November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant’s obligation to pay retirement allowances and annual leave allowances, which the Defendant had not paid to the Plaintiff, was KRW 54,000,000,000, and the Defendant’s obligation to pay to the Plaintiff for the amount of KRW 11,00,000 on November 20, 2013, KRW 11,000,000 on December 20, 2013, KRW 11,000,000 on January 20, 2014, and the same year.

2. 11,00,000 won, and the same year.

3. An agreement was made to pay KRW 10,000,000.

On November 20, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 11,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, Eul 1, 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the principal claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 43,000,000 and delayed payment for retirement pay and annual leave allowance, barring any special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion (a set-off defense and a counterclaim claim of KRW 50,000,000) paid the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000,000 per month from May 200 to October 10, 200 as a revolving cost, and the Plaintiff took part without using it for the revolving purpose. As such, the Defendant has a claim against the Plaintiff for restitution of unjust enrichment or tort damages of KRW 120,00,000.

The defendant set-off the above 120,000,000 won claims against the plaintiff's retirement allowance claims. Since all the plaintiff's claims are extinguished, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

In addition, the defendant sought payment of KRW 50,000,000 as part of the claim against the plaintiff.

B. Therefore, the Defendant’s damage claim against the Plaintiff for unjust enrichment of KRW 120,000 or tort is assessed against the Plaintiff.