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. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff is the only evidence to prove that the party principal examination of the defendant's representative is the defendant's employee, and the court of Article 290 and Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Act (Adoption of the evidence application) may not investigate the defendant's representative when it deems it unnecessary to do so.

unless it is the sole evidence of the facts alleged by the party.

The appellate court's argument that it must be adopted under the proviso to this paragraph.

However, in this case where the plaintiff submitted a number of documentary evidence to prove that he is the defendant's employee at the first instance court, whether it is the only evidence, it is difficult to view that the party principal examination of the defendant's representative is the only evidence prescribed in the above provision. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff rejected the plaintiff's response to the plaintiff's request for the explanation, and thus, Articles 150 (1) and 150 (Voluntary Confession) of the Civil Procedure Act (1) of the same Act are deemed to have led to the confession of the fact when the parties clearly do not dispute the facts alleged by

However, the same shall not apply where it is deemed that the facts were proved in light of the overall purport of the pleading.

However, in the instant case where the Defendant consistently contests that the Plaintiff is not the Defendant’s employee from the first instance trial to the point of view, the Defendant led to the confession of the Plaintiff’s assertion solely on the ground that the Defendant did not give specific answers to the Plaintiff’s request for the explanation.