1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was employed by the representative E of the Djuju station located in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Busan, and retired from office after providing labor from December 8, 2003 to January 3, 2007.

B. The Plaintiff was unable to receive part of the wages and retirement allowances during the pertinent period of employment, and filed a civil petition with the Government Branch of the Seoul Regional Labor Administration, and received the confirmation of delayed payment and payment of KRW 5,837,79, out of the wages and retirement allowances, around May 3, 2007.

(hereinafter referred to as “related civil petition case”). (c)

E was issued a summary order on September 13, 2007, which was sentenced to a fine of KRW 500,000,000 by the High Government District Court 2007 Highly 6830 on September 13, 2007, on the ground that the above payment of wages, etc. was in violation of the Labor Standards Act, and the above summary order was finalized on September 23, 200.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 4, 8 (including various numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant was responsible for the vice president of the above workplace at the time when the plaintiff worked at the Dju station. However, the plaintiff's allegation that the labor inspector of the Seoul Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office was investigated into the civil petition case by the labor inspector of the Seoul Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office, stating the amount of the plaintiff's overdue wages differently from the facts, unfairly reduced wages that the plaintiff would actually receive, thereby causing damage to the plaintiff.

B. In light of the reasoning of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff caused damage to the Plaintiff by making a false statement as to the amount of wages that the Plaintiff should have received from E as a labor inspector due to the relevant civil petition case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number), the plaintiff is not liable against Eul for the payment of the above period of work as 2008Kadan9566.