1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The judgment of the court of first instance, which determined only one of the selective claims by the plaintiff, dismissed, and the decision on the remaining claims is unlawful, and since the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance that was unlawful as such, the whole of the plaintiff's selective claims was transferred to the appellate court. Thus, the part of the selective claims, which was not determined among the selective claims, is not deemed to have been pending in the court of first instance as a omission of judgment

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da99 delivered on July 24, 1998, etc.). Examining the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine, the Plaintiff filed a claim for wage and retirement allowance in the first instance court’s primary claim for a tort claim and a claim for return of unjust enrichment. Each of the above claims is identical on the basis of multiple concurrent claims compatible with each other. As such, the Plaintiff appears to fall under the selective combination of claims seeking adjudication on the multiple claims under the condition that one of the claims be accepted.

However, the court of first instance judged only the claim for wages and retirement allowances, dismissed it, and omitted judgment on the claim for damages caused by illegal acts and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment.

Therefore, as long as the plaintiff appealed, not only a claim for wages and retirement allowances, but also a claim for damages due to illegal acts and a claim for restitution of unjust enrichment are subject to the judgment of the court.

2. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 8, 15, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7:

The defendant is a corporation that runs the business of passenger transport business.

B. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant on October 21, 2002, and served as the general manager on August 1, 201, who is a non-registered executive officer.