1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance on the scope of the trial in this Court dismissed all the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim.

Accordingly, since only the defendant appealed against the counterclaim claim against the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the counterclaim claim.

2. The defendant's assertion

A. From February 2015 to November 2017 during the working period, the Plaintiff was absent from office for 17 days without reporting and obtaining approval, and was used for more than 4.5 days from March 2014 to March 2017, the Plaintiff appears to be the amount calculated by deducting the Plaintiff’s annual allowances of 1,621,324 won, such as wages, paid in excess to the Defendant, from the amount of KRW 1,621,324, the amount of KRW 1,530,792 due to unauthorized absence from office, and the amount of KRW 274,264, the Plaintiff’s annual allowances of 2017 after deducting the Plaintiff’s annual allowances of 1,621,324 from the amount of KRW 1,530,792 due to excessive absence from office.

(F) The insured shall be obligated to return the annual excess of KRW 1,530,792 to the insured (274,264 - annual salary of KRW 183,732).

B. After having been dismissed on August 31, 2017, the Plaintiff received KRW 1.9 million for the advance notice of dismissal on September 20, 2017. The Plaintiff was reinstated on September 22, 2017, and was paid all wages during the period of dismissal.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to return 1,90,000 won of the allowance for pre-determination of dismissal to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Each statement of 9 and 13 evidence (including each number) on the claim for the return of excess wages is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s unauthorized absence from office and the Defendant’s excessive use of the year, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 10 and the entire arguments, the defendant was investigated by an investigative agency as to whether the plaintiff was not paid wages between March 10, 2014 and February 9, 2018, which is the plaintiff's service period. The above investigative agency also asserted the same purport, but the summary indictment was made.