As a result of the Defendant’s appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the part concerning the principal claim by the judgment of remand, and dismissed the appeal against the counterclaim claim.

Since the part of the defendant's counterclaim claim was confirmed through the above circumstances, the scope of this court's trial after remand is limited to the part of the main claim that was reversed and remanded.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where “the text(1)” is referred to as “the claim” among the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. The plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter "the plaintiff et al.") asserted 1) established the defendant in order to evade the retirement allowance obligation against the plaintiff et al., and both T and the defendant are identical to the defendant's personal company like U.S., and thus, the defendant must pay each retirement allowance as stated in the purport of the claim that the plaintiff et al. did not receive during the service period. 2) Since the defendant alleged in the transfer of business succeeds to the employment of the plaintiff et al., the defendant must pay the plaintiff et al. each retirement allowance stated in the purport of the claim.

B. 1) Determination on the assertion of denial of corporate personality is that if an existing company establishes a new company with substantially identical form and content in order to evade debts, it constitutes abuse of corporate system.