1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1.In fact, the following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the whole purport of the pleadings, either entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7, and in part entry in Eul evidence 1.

(1) The Defendant’s name, following the Defendant’s name, in the document No. 2, is presumed to be the authenticity of the entire document, because there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image following the Defendant’s name is based on the seal of the Defendant’s representative director, and thus, the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to have been established. As to this, the Defendant, without authority, defense that the Plaintiff kept the Defendant’s seal and affixed the seal to the Defendant after the Defendant’s name, which is indicated in the above document No. 2, the Defendant’s name, but it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s seal. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the document, as there is no dispute over the seal of the Defendant’s representative director as indicated in the document No. 5. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it).

The defendant is a company established on December 4, 1995 for the purpose of passenger transport business and is operating village buses in Seongdong-gu, and C is the representative director of the defendant from June 29, 2012 to June 29, 2012.

The plaintiff is serving as a driver belonging to the defendant since the police officer in 2003.

From the mid-208 Police Officer to the end of September 2013, the defendant served as the chief of the management office.

B. As of July 24, 2013, the Defendant, due to the aggravation of management, did not pay the 4th insurance premium in total equivalent to the 50,435,910 won, and had an affiliated driver experienced financial difficulties, such as the suspension of operation of village buses on July 8, 2013 and August 5, 2013 due to the delayed payment of wages.

C. The Plaintiff’s total sum of the Defendant’s overdue wages is KRW 66,78,00,000 for the Defendant, food expenses for affiliated drivers and employees, and KRW 33,945,650 for the Defendant as a loan interest on the above overdue wages.