임금 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the defendant's argument for additional determination, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420
2. Additional determination
A. The defendant's assertion is not a worker belonging to B (hereinafter "B") but a partner who leases and operates part of the space within B factory, and therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay the unpaid wages, annual allowances, and retirement allowances to the plaintiff.
B. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 8 and Eul's evidence Nos. 3 (including each number), the following circumstances can be acknowledged. If so, the plaintiff can be acknowledged from the time of entry into Eul on Jun. 4, 2007 to Oct. 25, 2014 that the plaintiff was a worker of Eul, and the plaintiff was a substitute payment of KRW 10,831,250 from the bank account in the name of D, which is recognized by the statement of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the fact that Eul paid four insurance to the plaintiff during the pertinent period that the plaintiff was not a substitute payment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion.
(1) After becoming a member of the Plaintiff on June 4, 2007, the Plaintiff had several changes without the Plaintiff’s consent. On October 25, 2014, the Plaintiff continued to engage in printing work under the direction of the superior E, who is the same person, in the same place, until he/she retires from D.
On September 1, 2007, B B, and D of June 4, 2009, the date of acquisition of the name of the place of business / B of June 4, 2009, B of June 11, 2007, the date of acquisition of the name of the place of business / B of June 201, 207, B of September 11, 2007, B of September 11, 2007, B of January 1, 2009, G of November 1, 2009, G of November 25, 2013, D of June 26, 2013, D of June 25, 2013, which the Plaintiff belonged, uses the same place of business as F, G, and D of the corporation F.