1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 128,200,843 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 10, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant Language Research Institute was a corporation established on September 22, 2014 for the purpose of running a foreign language private teaching institute and operated B, and prior to that, acquired the business of C (hereinafter “C”) that operated the same private teaching institute at the same place.

B. C and Defendant Language Institute (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant private teaching institute”) were organized as a management department in charge of activities such as recruiting students, accounting, accounting, accounting, guidance, cleaning, etc., and a lecturer comprised of private teaching institute instructors.

C. The business division is divided into five teams, and each team was composed of the team leader and team members. Around February 25, 2002, the Plaintiff joined the instant private teaching institute and worked in the business division. Around December 21, 2016, the head of the division, who was employed as the team leader, retired from office on December 21, 2016, and retired from the Defendant Fishery Research Institute.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff retired from office as an employee of the instant driving school. As such, Defendant LAC is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a retirement allowance calculated on the basis of the average wage of 30 days for one year of continuous employment pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act. 2) The Plaintiff claims the Defendant to return KRW 2,066,355, which was accumulated as a loss to the Defendant.

B. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant entered into a contract with the defendant for the commission of an Embrypt and was entrusted with the recruitment of students.

The head of the team determined the employment of new employees in the business division, and independently received commission fees according to the results of the recruitment of students in the business division, such as the cost of the recruitment of students in the business division itself, and did not have a subordinate employment relationship.

Therefore, the defendant.