1. The appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim and the instant court added the counterclaim to the counterclaim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the court of first instance.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the part as described below in paragraph (2) and Paragraph (3) as to the principal claim and counterclaim, and as to the preliminary claim added to a counterclaim, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal by Defendant B, as to the principal claim and counterclaim, and as to the preliminary claim added to a counterclaim, it shall be cited as it is included in the summary under the main sentence

2. (a) All of the sections in the first instance judgment (a) Nos. 3 and 13 and hereinafter referred to as “Korea-Korea-Japan Public Partnership Co., Ltd.” shall be raised to “Korea-Japan Public Partnership Co., Ltd.”.

(b) Part 5 of the first instance judgment "Article 17 (Definitions)" was amended to "Article 23 (Allowances and overtime allowances)".

(c) On the part of the first instance judgment, Articles 9 and 10 of the 6th instance judgment, “If the authorization was obtained from the head of Gangseo-gu, the authorization was obtained from the head of Gangseo-gu, the authorization was obtained.”

(d) On the 9th instance judgment of the first instance court, the first instance court stated that “No evidence exists to determine that money is subject to settlement,” “No evidence exists to acknowledge that money is subject to settlement.”

(e) On the 9th judgment of the first instance, Article 20 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings (hereinafter “each ratio”) shall be applied to “each ratio of 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings

(f) On the 10th of the first instance judgment, the term “period of employment” in the table 25th of the table of the first instance judgment (as shown in the table 2), “1.1” was added to “1.1. and October 2014.”

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion that granting the Plaintiff the right to claim for the return of money contradicts the facts and empirical rules (related to the principal lawsuit), the gist of the allegation is as follows.