1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Jeonju District Court rendered the defendant's assistance to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person running a transport business with the trade name called C, and the Defendant is a person who served as a driver at C from March 16, 2015 to April 16, 2015.

B. The defendant caused a traffic accident during the above working period.

The plaintiff paid KRW 2,714,893, which is equivalent to the repair cost due to the above traffic accident.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of KRW 2,450,000,00 for the total of the wages of March 2015 and April 2, 2015, as the Dolsan District Court 2015Gada6290, Dolsan District Court 2015.

On August 24, 2015, the above court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”) with the purport that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant an amount equivalent to KRW 2,450,000 and KRW 20% per annum from May 1, 2015 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “decision on performance recommendation of this case”).

On August 26, 2015, the decision of performance recommendation was finalized on September 10, 2015 after the delivery to the Plaintiff.

The Defendant received 2,450,000 won of the unpaid wages from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation around September 22, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff caused a multiple traffic accident while working for the plaintiff company, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff, including KRW 2,714,893, and KRW 7,714,893, in total, KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 insurance premium for traffic accident. The plaintiff asserts to the purport that the defendant set off the damage claim of KRW 7,714,893, which the plaintiff has against the defendant, 2,450,000,000 against the plaintiff, the defendant's claim for the above wage was extinguished in full, and therefore, the compulsory execution based

In general, wages are to be paid in full to workers (Article 43(1) of the Labor Standards Act). Thus, wages cannot be offset against workers’ wage claims as a claim against workers.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion.