1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a person who is engaged in building and civil engineering services in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government as D, and the Plaintiff is employed and working for the Defendant from April 29, 2014 to May 27, 2016.

B. The Defendant did not pay KRW 13,703,407 to the Plaintiff in total for the period from January 2016 to May 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 13,703,407 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from June 11, 2016 to the date of full payment under the Labor Standards Act, which is 14 days after the Plaintiff’s retirement date.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff KRW 1,703,407 on March 9, 2017, which was appropriated for the principal of the unpaid wage.

B. According to the evidence No. 1) No. 3, the defendant's transfer of KRW 1,703,407 to the plaintiff's account on March 9, 2017, which is ongoing in the appellate trial of this case, is recognized. (2) On the other hand, the order of appropriation under Article 479 of the Civil Act is stipulated in the order of appropriation for payment of expenses, interest, and principal, and Article 476 of the Civil Act concerning appropriation for payment of expenses is not applicable mutatis mutandis. Thus, in principle, expenses, interest, and principal must be appropriated in the order of appropriation. Although the debtor as well as the creditor cannot designate the order of appropriation unilaterally differently from the above legal order, if there is a special agreement between the parties, or if it is deemed that the other party has not raised any objection to the unilateral designation without delay, the order of appropriation appropriation can be acknowledged differently from the order of appropriation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da12399 Decided June 11, 2009). The record is based on three records.