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 reasoning for the court’s explanation in this part is the same as the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal of the following parts. As such, the part of the court’s reasoning is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the court’s reasoning is as follows: “A request for formal trial at this time during the trial or during the trial upon filing an application for formal trial with the Suwon District Court 2013 High Court 484, 1275 (combined).” The court filed a request for formal trial at this time on July 6, 2016, sentenced to a fine of KRW 4 million with the Suwon District Court 2016No4798 (Joint) (hereinafter “instant fine”). Accordingly, it is still pending in the appellate trial by appealed District Court 2016No4798).”

- The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2015Du53299 on November 20, 2015 on the ground that the appellate brief was submitted on November 20, 2015.

The term "domination" is changed.

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not withdraw the Plaintiff’s complaint on the instant case violating the Minimum Wage Act even though the Defendant directly prepared the instant second certificate, and filed a lawsuit claiming the Defendant’s minimum wage.

This constitutes a non-performance as an act contrary to the non-performance agreement of the second promise of this case, and the representative of the plaintiff suffered losses caused by the fine of this case due to the failure to withdraw the above non-performance agreement, even though the non-performance agreement was concluded as above.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the Defendant’s wage claim amounting to KRW 9,983,427 as damages for nonperformance or tort, the sum of KRW 13,983,427 as well as KRW 4 million as the amount of the fine in this case, and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. The fact that the Defendant failed to perform the matters indicated in the No. 2 Certificate although the Defendant prepared and issued the instant No. 2 Certificate to the Plaintiff is as seen earlier.

However, on December 12, 2012, the defendant is a member of the E-Subdivision.