1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The friendly Design Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) is an indoor decoration construction business company.

B. Around August 2011, the Defendant submitted a written application for confirmation of the payment of substitute payments and substitute payments, etc. to the non-party company’s employee, which was not paid wages, even though the Defendant was not a legitimate recipient of substitute payments. On September 7, 2011, the Defendant was notified by the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office’s Seoul District Office that the requirements for substitute payments were confirmed.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid 1,320,000 won to the Defendant on September 9, 2011.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant substitute payment”). C.

On February 26, 2014, the head of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Office notified the Plaintiff on February 26, 2014, and 26 persons, including the Defendant, (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) were not the employees of the non-party company, and accordingly, notified the Defendant, etc. of the confirmation of the requirement for the payment of substitute payment (hereinafter “instant cancellation disposition”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant received the instant substitute payment from the Plaintiff without any legal ground even though it does not meet the requirements for the payment of substitute payment, and unjust enrichment. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from September 3, 2015 to June 2, 2017, the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, by the Defendant’s objection as to the existence and scope of the obligation.

Nonparty B, C, D, E, and F against the Plaintiff as Seoul Administrative Court No. 2014Guhap5902.