1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 1, 2015, the Defendant concluded an employment contract with the Plaintiff and served as an oriental medical doctor at the hospital operated by the Plaintiff by November 7, 2016 from that date.

B. The defendant was provided with meals provided by the plaintiff during the above service period, but did not separately provide meals to the plaintiff until retirement or requested payment from the plaintiff.

C. On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) paid KRW 4,00 to the Plaintiff the 1 restaurant used by the cafeteria (hereinafter referred to as the “instant arrangement”) on the ground of “the instant agreement on meal expenses for the cafeteria”; (b) sought the payment of the meal expenses to the Defendant on the basis of the “the instant agreement on the cafeteria.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In accordance with the agreement of this case with the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the food cost of KRW 1,052,000 during the period of service and delay damages therefor.

3. The following facts or circumstances revealed in light of the aforementioned evidence, the facts and the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, namely, the contract prepared by the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of entering into the labor contract, appears to be without any mentioning regard to food, and if the Plaintiff and the Defendant, at the time of entering into the labor contract, require the employees to prepare a written consent stating that “the Plaintiff would pay food in advance upon the request of the employer,” then it would be entirely determined by the Plaintiff’s intent, and would be likely to unfairly pressure the employees with different opinions from the Plaintiff. This would lead to an unreasonable labor practice, etc., depending on the circumstances, and the Plaintiff appears to have claimed food for food only to the employees in dispute, such as the Plaintiff, the employer, and the delayed payment of wages, etc., among the employees.