1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff in relation to the defendant D, which is equivalent to the payment order below.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 2012, 2012, United Nations requested the recruitment of Chinese workers who can work in the Korean factory to the non-party E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party E”) whose representative director is Defendant C (hereinafter “non-party E”).

B. The Defendant D, who became aware of the aforementioned circumstances, proposed that the F director of the non-party company would recruit Chinese workers.

C. Around September 16, 2012, Defendant D recruited 17 Chinese workers, including the Plaintiff and B, introduced the above persons to the non-party company. Around September 16, 2012, the Plaintiff and the non-party company entered into an industrial trainee recruitment contract with the non-party company to employ the above Chinese workers in the Republic of Korea. Defendant D also signed the above industrial trainee recruitment contract.

The Plaintiff and B paid 170,000,000,000 per person, in the name of deposit, etc., to the non-party company.

E. However, the said 17 Chinese workers, including the plaintiff, were industrial trainees, who were unable to enter and find a job in Korea.

F. On October 29, 2012, Nonparty Company promised to pay 60,000 U.N. to the Plaintiff.

G. The Plaintiff and B, who did not receive the above 170,000 UN from the non-party company, had Defendant D signed the above industrial trainee recruitment contract and guaranteed entry into the Republic of Korea of 17 industrial trainees who are the above China. Thus, Defendant D promised to pay KRW 12,00,000 to the Plaintiff and B by December 31, 2012.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant payment agreement”). [The ground for recognition: Each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including numbers), testimony in the trial witness F of the party, inquiry results in the fact-finding into U.N. Mana, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the claim against Defendant C is an industrial trainee who is the representative director of the Nonparty Company C, including the Plaintiff and B.