The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court shall judge whether the origin of facts is true in accordance with logical and empirical rules without free conviction, taking into account the purport of the whole pleadings and the result of examination of evidence.

(Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act) and the selection and evaluation of evidence conducted on the premise of fact recognition and its premise are within the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court unless it exceeds the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected all the counterclaims’ claims seeking payment of unpaid holiday allowances, salaries, automobile maintenance expenses, school expenses, accommodation expenses, and the construction expenses saved by changing the construction method at the construction site as the site manager of the counter-defendants.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that it is unfair to take the error of the counterclaim Defendant, which is irrelevant to the Labor Standards Act and did not properly account, into account the damages of the counterclaim Defendant.

However, such allegation in the grounds of appeal is merely a matter of fact-finding and the selection of evidence, which is the exclusive authority of the lower court, and thus does not constitute legitimate grounds of appeal.

Furthermore, even if examining the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.