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

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition common to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim was paid KRW 2,00,000 monthly from July 201 to December 201, as well as KRW 3,00,000 from August 201 to December 12, 201, while serving as an executive officer or employee, including the representative director, from July 201 to March 201.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid benefits amounting to KRW 9,000,000 for three months from January 2012 to March 201.

(B) According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1) of the sales slip, the Plaintiff was in office as the representative director of the Defendant until February 2012, and the agreed pay was KRW 3,000,000 per month, and received benefits from the Defendant until December 2011.

Meanwhile, according to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 evidence, the registration that the plaintiff resigned from the defendant's representative director as of Mar. 29, 2012 was completed on Apr. 2, 2012, and the plaintiff's qualification period for acquiring the plaintiff's national health insurance establishment from Nov. 1, 201 to Apr. 1, 2012 is recognized, but it is insufficient to reverse the judgment following the conclusion that the delegation relationship between the defendant was terminated by excluding the defendant from February 2, 2012 due to the plaintiff's resumption of delegation relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as of Apr. 1, 2012.

If the Plaintiff actually worked as the representative director of the Defendant until March 2012, the Plaintiff paid the said money to the Defendant’s representative director rather than the Plaintiff’s individual. Thus, the Plaintiff paid the said money to the Defendant or the Defendant.