All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and incidental appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

An appeal and incidental appeal.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the plaintiff's grounds for incidental appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, since it is the reason of the judgment of the first instance except for the following reasons, it is citing it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. From October 1, 2013 to July 31, 2018, the first instance judgment Nos. 4, 6 to 16 was dismissed. As such, the Plaintiff, as an employer, has the obligation to pay the Defendant a retirement allowance of KRW 26,95,789 and damages for delay.”

B. No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff newly entrusted with the instant work by referring to the fact that he/she entirely entrusted the instant work to the Defendant, who had performed the instant work, prior to this time to perform the said work.”

C. Section 7 of the first instance judgment is deleted. D.

In the first instance judgment, the part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance states that “the plaintiff shall return 30 million won received from the plaintiff as unjust enrichment,” and that “the defendant shall return 30 million won received from the plaintiff as unjust enrichment, as well as the defendant did not complete the development and planning service work among the project of this case within the service period, and the completion of the service period is not a result of the defendant's work, since it did not result in the defendant's work.”

E. On the 10th and 11th of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have lawfully terminated the instant service contract. Therefore, on a different premise, the prior Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.”