1. On the principal lawsuit among the judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim on the principal lawsuit expanded by this court.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows, and this part of the lower court’s judgment is identical to that of the corresponding part of the first instance judgment, and thus, is acceptable pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

From January 1, 200 to January 3, 2007, the Plaintiff served as a Korean language instructor and a associate professor at the pertinent private teaching institute. From January 3, 2007 to February 14, 2008, the Plaintiff was employed as an instructor at the Dental Institute for Operation of E, and the Plaintiff was employed as an instructor at the instant private teaching institute again on March 25, 2008, and was employed as a Korean language instructor and a associate instructor from February 201 to November 30, 201, and served as a Korean language instructor at the instant private teaching institute during the pertinent period from January 30, 201 to January 30, 201, and the Plaintiff was employed as a combined instructor at the instant private teaching institute during the pertinent period from January 30, 201 to as a combined instructor at each of the instant private teaching institutes, and each of the Plaintiff had worked as a combined instructor at each of the instant private teaching institutes during the pertinent period of 15th century.

Part 4 of the first instance judgment, Part 1 and Part 2 of the second instance judgment "Nos. 1 through 9, 12-14 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)", each of the entire arguments "Nos. 1 through 3, 8, 10, 27, 32 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and each of the evidences Nos. 3, 8, 10, 27, and 32 of the first instance judgment, the inquiry results with respect to the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office of Education in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the whole purport of the arguments "..........."

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s retirement allowance payment obligation and scope 1) Plaintiff is the Defendant’s direction and supervision from January 1, 200 to November 30, 2014, and served as the Defendant’s general assistant instructor of the instant driving school, and the vice president was performing his duties in the process.