1. The part against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) among the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. The scope of the trial in this Court claimed payment of unpaid benefits and expenses to the Defendant on the merits of the lawsuit. The Defendant, as a counterclaim, claimed against the Plaintiff for loans, reimbursement of compensation, and penalty due to the refusal of dispatch. The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the merits in entirety, the Defendant’s claim on the counterclaim was dismissed, and the Defendant’s claim on the repayment and reimbursement of loans and reimbursement was ruled to accept the claim on the penalty.

Therefore, since the plaintiff filed an appeal against the part against the plaintiff among the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of the court of first instance is limited to the part concerning the claim for penalty among the defendant's counterclaim (However, the part concerning "A. the plaintiff's assertion" from No. 3 to No. 15 of the judgment on the claim for main lawsuit, and the part concerning "A. I.A." from the part concerning "A. the plaintiff's claim" from No. 13 to No. 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part concerning "A.A." in No. 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deleted, and the part concerning "A.A." from the part concerning "B. the judgment"

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on a claim for penalty among counterclaims

A. 1) The Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant the rent for a period of three months if the Plaintiff rejected the dispatch without any justifiable reason under Articles 9(2) and 10(2) of the instant contract, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant 13.5 million won (=4.5 million won x 3) in accordance with the penalty clause, since the Plaintiff refused the dispatch after September 4, 2014, at the demand of the Defendant for the dispatch of vehicles on several occasions. (2) The Plaintiff is an employee in relation to the Defendant, and thus, the contract on the penalty for breach of contract is null and void in violation of Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act.