1. Claim for counterclaim among the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the defendants' counterclaims extended in the trial of the court of first instance.

1. In the first instance court within the scope of the judgment of this court, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages as the principal lawsuit, and the Defendants filed a claim for each wage as the counterclaim. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim, and partly accepted Defendant B’s counterclaim, and accepted Defendant C, D, and E in its entirety.

Therefore, only the claim against the plaintiff was filed, and thereafter, the defendants filed an incidental appeal to expand the counterclaim claim including the part against the plaintiff in defendant B. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is the part of the defendants' counterclaim claim extended in the trial including the plaintiff's main claim and the part against the plaintiff in defendant B.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning the basic facts and the claims on the merits is as stated in the pertinent part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is claiming against the Plaintiff for payment of the following amounts and damages for delay thereof:

(1) The Defendants’ unpaid wages (Defendant B: 11,82,446 won, Defendant C: 16,154,419 won, Defendant D:2,237,01 won, Defendant E:1,376,452 won, and Defendant E:1,376,452 won) (2) the Defendants agreed to be additionally paid KRW 500,000 each month in return for the Defendants’ holding the position of the president of the Plaintiff’s Institute as the principal of the Plaintiff’s Institute. Defendant B lent 7,50,000 won to the Plaintiff or borrowed H from Defendant B as the operating expenses of the Plaintiff’s Institute, the Plaintiff’s representative, despite being borrowed from Defendant B under the name of the operating expenses of the Private Institute. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s failure to receive reimbursement from the Plaintiff by omitting the Plaintiff’s indication on the cause document. As such, the Plaintiff’s liability to compensate for damages under Articles 389(3) and 210 of the Commercial Act was paid to the Plaintiff’s KRW 30,3130.

B. Unpaid wages of the Defendants.