1.The main text of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be amended as follows:

The defendant is against the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed against the Plaintiff a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the dismissal as of May 2, 201 and payment of wages at the rate of KRW 7,000,000 per month from May 2, 2011 to the date of the reinstatement of the Defendant’s original status as Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Ga56052 (hereinafter “the subject judgment”) and received a favorable judgment on May 3, 2012 (hereinafter “the subject judgment”).

Therefore, even though the Plaintiff appealed by Seoul High Court 2012Na41412, the dismissal judgment was rendered on February 1, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on February 23, 2013.

B. From May 28, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap26987, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment against the Defendant that “The compulsory execution based on the subject judgment against the Plaintiff was to be denied only to the extent that it exceeds “the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 42,500,000 (paid by wages of KRW 7,00,000 from May 2, 2011 to April 1, 2013) and the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 7,00,000 from April 2, 2013 to the date the Plaintiff reinstated the Defendant.”

Therefore, the Plaintiff appealed in Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na37588, but after the pleadings were concluded on September 5, 2013, the lower judgment was rendered on October 17, 2013, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 7, 2013.

C. On June 28, 2013, the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to be reinstated as B according to the subject judgment and the judgment of the previous suit, and sent a content certification (hereinafter “instant reinstatement order”) to attend the work at the fixed time from the day following the receipt of this document, and the Defendant received it on July 2, 2013, but did not thereafter attend the work.

On July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “The Defendant, despite the order of reinstatement, is absent from work without permission until July 17, 2013,” and the Defendant received it on July 22, 2013, but continued to refuse to work.

E. The Defendant, around July 19, 2013, is the second floor research institute of the factory office building, which is the Plaintiff.