2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff’s provision of labor at the shipbuilding yard of this case from September 2003 to July 2015 did not conflict between the parties.

However, Article 4(1) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act provides that "an employer shall establish one or more of the retirement benefit scheme to pay wages to retired workers: Provided, That the same shall not apply to workers whose continuous employment period is less than one year, and workers whose average weekly working hours are less than 15 hours per week, on an average of four weeks." However, each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 3 and the result of an order to submit financial transaction information on the statement of tax compliance in this court is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s average weekly working hours during the period from September 2003 to July 2015 were not less than 15 hours per week, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s above assertion.

(3) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff provided labor from September 2003 to July 2015 cannot be deemed as having acknowledged that the Defendant provided labor during the aforementioned period is 15 hours. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise cannot be accepted without need to further examine.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.