1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 39,738,480 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 20, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company whose business objective is building management and cleaning service business, etc., and the Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as U.S. dollars from January 13, 2014, and was notified of dismissal by the Defendant around June 14, 2014 while serving in the model B in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for remedy against unfair dismissal with the Seoul Regional Labor Relations Commission, and on August 26, 2014, a compromise between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded as follows:

(hereinafter “Settlement Agreement”). 1. The instant workers and the employer of the instant case terminate employment relationship as of July 22, 2014.

2. The employer of the instant case pays 500,000 won to the instant employee as the pre-existing wage account by September 2, 2014 with a settlement agreement, and it is deemed that the instant employee was in the original position at the time of the third unit sale of the apartment apartment related to the model house in which the instant employee had worked.

3. In the event that the above reconciliation clause is implemented, the parties of this case shall not raise any objection in connection with the termination of the labor relations of this case in the future through any civil, criminal, administrative or other means.

C. From April 3, 2015, the third apartment unit sale was conducted from around April 3, 2015, and the Defendant entered into a contract for the lot construction and the B model housing cleaning services, which is the place of the order, but did not reinstate the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 11, Eul evidence 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and determination as to the establishment of liability for damages

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant should reinstate the plaintiff at the time of the third apartment sale in accordance with the settlement agreement of this case, but still does not return the plaintiff to the original position. Thus, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for damages equivalent to the amount of wages that the plaintiff could have received from the defendant when the plaintiff is reinstated.

B. Regarding the third sale of the Defendant’s argument, the third sale of the apartment.