1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) supplied the Defendant with a worker on day duty between the Defendant and the Defendant who is engaged in the vessel processing business, etc.; (b) in the case of skilled crafts workers, the Defendant directly paid KRW 120,000 per capita daily allowances to the relevant employee; and (c) in the case of skilled crafts workers, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 90,000 per capita daily allowances to the relevant employee and pay KRW 30,000 to the Plaintiff at a fee (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. On March 1, 2013, and April 2013, the Plaintiff supplied daily workers to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay the Defendant fees. On May 16, 2013, the Defendant’s office of the Daewoo Shipbuilding Shipping Co., Ltd., the opposite contractual party of the instant agreement, held the Defendant’s demonstration (hereinafter “instant demonstration”) by citing a ticket containing the following contents: “The Defendant’s office of the Daewoo Shipbuilding Co., Ltd., the Defendant, forced the workers to pay the smuggling wages, and treat the company in arrears,” which is the other contractual party of the instant agreement. The Defendant committed the instant demonstration (hereinafter “instant demonstration”).

C. On May 23, 2014, the Plaintiff was prosecuted for committing a crime that defames the Defendant’s reputation due to the instant demonstration, and was sentenced to a judgment of a fine of KRW 700,000,000, which was issued by this court on May 23, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If a labor supply business operator who did not obtain the permission of the Minister of Labor in violation of Article 33(1) of the Employment Security Act regarding the main claim regards the validity of a supply contract concluded with a labor supply business operator who did not obtain the permission of the Minister of Labor, it would allow another person to intervene in the employment of another person for profit prohibited under Article 9 of the Labor Standards Act, and would also go against the purpose of prohibiting an unauthorized labor supply business under