1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s appeal on the principal lawsuit of this case and the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is that the part concerning "No. 5, etc." of the first instance court's 3th 7th 7th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth 8th 8th 20 to 9th 13th eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth eth

2. A part used for a trial;

D. 1) In order to correct the previous practices that the construction company acquired without paying the insurance premium to the daily workers who actually work when the government or a public corporation or a general company enters into a construction contract, the contractor does not definitely pay the insurance premium to the workers, such as national health insurance premium or national pension premium, but it is limited to the case where the contractor proves that the contractor paid the above statutory insurance premium, etc. to the workers according to the documentary evidence. Even if the amount is actually paid to the workers, if the contractor fails to submit the above documentary evidence, the amount equivalent to the statutory insurance premium, etc. should not be paid. 2) If there is no dispute or if the amount equivalent to the above documentary evidence is actually paid to the workers, the evidence No. 1, Eul No. 30, and Eul No. 30, and the purport of the appraisal commission as a result of the appraisal commission made by A on December 2, 2014.