1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. Scope of the judgment of this court;

A. The court of first instance partially accepted the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages among the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for principal lawsuit, and dismissed the remainder, which did not appeal both the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

Therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim for unpaid wages was excluded from the scope of the trial.

B. The court of the first instance partially dismissed the counterclaim claim, but it was excluded from the scope of the trial in the trial of the party because both parties did not appeal.

2. Basic facts

A. From June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff served as a member of the Defendant Company and retired on February 29, 2012.

B. In order to receive wages not paid by the Defendant after retirement, the Plaintiff filed a petition for violation of the Labor Standards Act against C, the Defendant’s representative director, with the Ministry of Central and Medium Regional Employment and Labor’s Office.

C. On October 5, 2012, C received a summary order of KRW 2 million from the Jung-gu District Court on the grounds of the violation of the Labor Standards Act that the Plaintiff and D did not pay the wages at the time of filing a claim for formal trial. On January 22, 2014, C was sentenced to a conviction of KRW 2 million on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 4,40,000 to D within 14 days from the date of occurrence of the cause for payment without agreement on extension of each due date for payment (the violation of the Labor Standards Act) on January 22, 2014.

On the other hand, even though the defendant filed a complaint against the plaintiff through occupational embezzlement, the government's prosecutor's office was not in compliance with the disposition of non-prosecution, and the Seoul High Prosecutors' Office ordered the re-investigation to the government's office on February 21, 2013. On February 26, 2013, the government's prosecutor's office requested a summary order of KRW 2 million for the plaintiff's suspicion of occupational embezzlement. On March 26, 2013, the parliamentary district court arbitrarily consumed KRW 9250,00 for the defendant while the plaintiff kept in custody for the defendant.