1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, with respect to the Plaintiff, KRW 200,000 and its related thereto from August 3, 2014 to May 13, 2015.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On May 9, 2013, the part of the claim for refund of advance payment was made by the Defendant, who was an employee of the Plaintiff, an individual entrepreneur, and paid KRW 3 million from the Plaintiff, and the same year.

6. 15. 15. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff should return to the plaintiff the remaining 5.90,000 won, excluding 2.4.1 billion won from the defendant's salary. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff paid the above amount as advance payment. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by damage of the glass, since there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Defendant destroyed the Plaintiff’s workplace glass.

Furthermore, since the fact that the plaintiff's property damage is 200,000 won as the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay 20,000 won to the plaintiff.

(3) The plaintiff's claim against the defendant for retirement allowance of KRW 4,181,356 against the plaintiff (Tgu District Court Port Branch Decision 2013Na21071) was made in the case where the defendant claimed 4,181,356 won against the plaintiff (Tgu District Court Branch Decision 2013Gapo21071 retirement allowance) and the mediation was made to pay KRW 3,00,000 to the defendant for damages due to the damage of glass. The plaintiff's damage claim against the defendant against the defendant was already extinguished by set-off in the above lawsuit, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above defense, and there is no reason to acknowledge the defendant's above defense.

C. Accordingly, according to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant is the defendant, as claimed by the plaintiff, since 200,000 won and its damage from glass.