1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant's decision was dated August 24, 2015, Changwon-nam District Court, Changwon-si, Seoul District Court, which held against the plaintiff.

1. An ex officio decision on the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance shall state the reasons therefor in a written judgment, and a written judgment shall indicate the parties’ assertion and other judgments on the method of offence and defense to the extent that the main text is recognizable to the extent that the reasons in the written judgment are sustainable;

(2) Article 208(1)4 and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that a written judgment of the court of first instance [see Article 2(1) of the Trial of Small Claims Act, Article 1-2 of the former Rules on Trial of Small Claims (amended by Supreme Court Regulations No. 2694, Nov. 29, 2016; hereinafter “Small Claims”) for the purpose of paying a certain amount of money or other substitutes or securities that does not exceed twenty million won when a lawsuit is brought among the cases under the jurisdiction of the district court and the branch court of the district court, may not include the reasons despite Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act (Article 11-2(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act). However, it is clear that a lawsuit of the objection of this case does not fall under the scope of a small claims subject to the Trial of Small Claims Act, by asserting that a debtor’s claim under the private law, which is the content of executive title, does not coincide with the present substantive condition and does not fall under the scope of an executory case.

Nevertheless, by applying Article 11-2(3) of the Trial of Small Claims Act, the court of the first instance erred by failing to enter the grounds therefor in the written judgment, and this constitutes “when the procedure for the judgment of the first instance is in violation of the law” under Article 417 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court of the first instance shall revoke the judgment and decide the instant case again.

2. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company that aims to manufacture vessel parts and components and repair business, etc., and the Plaintiff is employed by the Defendant as an on-site manager and provided labor at the Defendant’s workplace from December 5, 2014.

B. On January 19, 2015, the Defendant amounting to 3,000,000 won to the account in the name of C, the Plaintiff’s wife.