1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and above.

1. The reasoning for this court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is that the “20 million won” of the second sentence of the first instance judgment is “10 million won”, and the second sentence “195630,000 won” of the second sentence is “1.09,5630,000 won” of the second sentence is the same as the part of “1.0,000 won” of the grounds for the first instance judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasons why this court should explain concerning this part of the party's assertion are as follows: except where "the defendant" in Part 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the defendant" to the plaintiff as "the defendant"; therefore, it is identical to the part of "the summary of the party's argument" in the judgment of the court of first instance; therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

3. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation as to this part of the judgment is as stated in the part of “3.... judgment” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the following modifications, and therefore, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary Use] Part 10th to 19th 10th 10th 10th 10th 10th 19th 2th 2th 201.

3) According to the fact that the unpaid overtime work allowance, monthly allowance, and monthly allowance are contingent debts, and the above fact-finding was found, there was an obligation to pay the above D, E, G, J, and K overtime work hours and annual monthly allowance by June 30, 2012. However, the above employee demanded the Plaintiff to pay the unpaid overtime work allowance, annual allowance, and monthly allowance to the Plaintiff on January 2013, which was after the Plaintiff acquired the right to manage the medical corporation of this case. (hereinafter “the first settlement of this case”) on July 13, 2012.

B In light of the fact that there was no agreement on retirement allowances with respect to the succession of labor relations, but there was no agreement on retirement allowances, etc., and the Defendant asserted that he did not pay allowances to the workers in this case, at the time of the instant agreement.