beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the motion to return the provisional payment are dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: the witness of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be a witness of the court of first instance; the 10th "this judgment" of the 10th "the 4th "the court of first instance" shall be deemed to be "the witness of the court of first instance"; the 8th "the 15th "the 18th "the court of first instance" shall be deleted; and the 8th "the 15th "the 18th "the court of first instance" shall be the same as that of the court of
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. On June 20, 199, the Plaintiff: (a) KRW 11,386,250 as retirement allowance for interim settlement of accounts to the Defendant (this money is paid to the Defendant, as recognized by the Plaintiff himself/herself; and (b) money in the name of interim settlement of accounts of retirement allowances (Article 3 of the first instance court Decision) to be additionally deducted
(b) is included in paragraph (3).
[] Although there is a claim that the initial date of calculation of retirement pay should be June 21, 199, the initial date of calculation of retirement pay should be June 21, 199, the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 11, 12 or Gap evidence Nos. 17, 20, 24, 29, and 31 which the plaintiff pointed out or submitted in the trial at the trial at the trial at the time is insufficient to deem that the above amount was paid on the basis of the interim settlement agreement of retirement pay according to the defendant's individual and free will at the time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (B) As seen in the above cited part, it is difficult to view that the above interim settlement agreement was made according to the defendant's individual and free will at the time of 202, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff paid a certain amount of money separately from the wages to the defendant at the time of 203, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff actually paid a certain amount of money under the pretext of additional payment.