1. Of the parts against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the amount of order ordering payment below.

Ⅰ. The reasoning of the first instance judgment citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment is as follows.

Ⅱ The remainder, excluding the part re-written in this paragraph, is reasonable, and this is also the same in addition to the evidence submitted by the first instance court, to the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 37 through 44 (a considerable number of interested parties submit the documentary evidence submitted by the first instance court).

Therefore, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, the following reasons are applicable:

Ⅱ cites the remainder, other than the parts re-written in this case, for the reasons of this case.

The following:

In Chapter Ⅲ, the parties have added the judgment on the argument that the appeal is repeated by the appellate court.

Ⅱ Part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment

1. Once the judgment of the court of first instance is 8, the following 8 parts of the judgment of first instance, which modified the first instance as follows, are amended as follows: “Recognizing that there has been an agreement on payment,” the following 8 parts are amended.

“The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was an agreement on the payment [the part of KRW 13,00,000 for labor expenses (I) on December 27, 201 is excluded. This part is to recognize that there was an agreement on the payment of labor expenses of KRW 55,00,00 for personnel expenses of September 9, 201 (“Fin as well as in the paragraph”)].”

2. According to the facts found in the judgment of the court of first instance, the 14th to 17th as above, as stated in the following subparagraphs, the defendant paid labor expenses by subrogation with the consent of the plaintiff as of September 8, 201, and thus, barring any special circumstance, the plaintiff is obligated to reimburse the defendant for labor expenses of KRW 55 million.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that he/she repaid all after November 4, 201.

Therefore, first of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant the labor cost of KRW 42 million (=20 million on September 9, 201, KRW 200 million on September 23, 201, KRW 12 million on September 24, 201).

In full view of the evidence No. 37, evidence No. 2-1, and evidence No. 2-2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is the plaintiff.