2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. On April 5, 2013, the Defendant was established by dividing it into AD (hereinafter “AD”) for the purpose of oral, handbags, and household sales business.

B. AE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AE”) was established on March 7, 2013 as a company engaged in oral, bags, clothing, manufacture of musical beverages, wholesale and retail business, etc., and was dissolved by a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders on October 22, 2018, and was liquidated on December 28, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. Plaintiffs 1) AD produced and sold the oral brand of “AF”, and around 2013, the part of AC oral manufacturing and sale from AD was separated from “Defendant” and “AE”. At the time, the head of the development office in the production management office and the head of the development office are changed under AE, and the remainder of production management office (diner, MD, accounting department, business division, and CS team, etc.) was changed under AE. Even after the change was made, the chemical agents were made orally under the direction of the Defendant, and the wages of the chemical agents were also managed and paid by the Defendant. The Defendant and AE used the same space as the Defendant’s factory. The Plaintiffs were practically the same company as the Defendant and AE, and the Defendant and the Defendant were the same company as the Defendant and the Defendant were the same. The Plaintiffs constitute the Defendant’s retirement benefits under Article 23 of the Labor Standards Act, which were directly retired or changed under the same conditions as the Defendant’s retirement benefits.