All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff Co., Ltd.) are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be individually counted.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

The court's explanation on this part is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance is presented as follows. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judgment of the court below on the plaintiff's assertion and evidence on the plaintiff's appeal Nos. 281,60,000 M, N,O, P, P, P, Q 281,60,000 No. 5 No. 1, N, P, P, Q 281,60,000 at Jeju-si 281,60,000 purchase and sale price (unit (unit (unit) of the contractor No. 2, GH 277,200,000, No. 1462,00,000, WH 143,500,000, TWH 143,50,000, 200, ABA65,000,000, as well as ABD No. 19,000, ABD No. 100,000, as well as AM10,000.

Therefore, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in Paragraph 2 of the same Article, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main text of

The grounds for appeal on this part of the plaintiff's judgment on the claim for wages in the principal lawsuit are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, there is no additional evidence submitted in the appellate court, and even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court is reviewed again, the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court shall be

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on this case is difficult to view that, considering the amount of money that the plaintiff received from the defendant C as a business allowance, the plaintiff’s career, etc., it is difficult to deem that the plaintiff was actually a worker, but the defendant C voluntarily determined matters concerning tax withholding and four-party insurance in an economic superior position.

Except for the addition of "the first instance judgment", the reasons for the judgment are as follows.