1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the construction business, and the Defendant served as the head of the Plaintiff’s site office from April 11, 2012 to May 10, 2015.

On April 11, 2012, the Defendant concluded an employment contract with the Plaintiff orally, and agreed to pay monthly salary of KRW 3,076,920 (hereinafter “instant wage contract”).

On the other hand, on October 23, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,069,630 to the Defendant as retirement allowance.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 4 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. 1) The Defendant filed a claim for damages with the Plaintiff Company’s “C Support Construction Work” and “D Construction Work site Director”. At the time, the Defendant had the Plaintiff perform construction differently from the construction design drawings and spent the Plaintiff Company a total of KRW 18,425,250 for reconstruction costs. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said money and its delay damages in compensation for damages. 2) At the time of the instant benefit contract, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to include the retirement allowance and its bonus as well as the basic salary, and the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff a retirement allowance by including the retirement allowance divided into the Defendant’s monthly salary pursuant to the said agreement.

Nevertheless, since the defendant received a new retirement allowance, the defendant should return the amount of KRW 9,069,630 received to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for damages No. 1 is organized, and the above statement alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant, who is the head of the site, executes construction differently from the drawing at the site, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s assertion was caused. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is not accepted.

C. Determination on a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to retirement allowances is made.