퇴직금
1. The Defendant: 6,099,893 won; 5,421,676 won; 1,054,041 won; 1,054,041 won; and 2,000 won to the Appointor C.
1. According to Gap evidence 1-1 to 5 of the plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter "the plaintiff") is from March 25, 2005 to December 31, 2009; Eul is from June 5, 2006 to July 24, 2011; Eul is from August 1, 2006 to July 24, 201; Eul is the selected person Eul is the selected person from July 1, 2006 to July 24, 201; from July 1, 2010 to July 24, 201; from May 1, 2007 to July 24, 201; from May 1, 2007 to December 31, 2009; from May 24, 2015 to July 24, 2011; from the selected person of the defendant's retirement allowance, the selected person who was appointed by the plaintiff's 3 106.
According to the above facts, the defendant prosperity is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,905,107 won as retirement pay to the plaintiff, 6,099,893 won to the Selection C, 5,421,676 won to the Selection, 1,054,041 won to the Selection E, 4,189,070 won to the Selection and delay damages.
2. Determination as to the argument of the defendant prosperity
A. On July 6, 2011, G brought the management documents and the passbook of management expenses without permission, and illegally took office as the representative of the defendant prosperity and took office as the representative of G, and accordingly, the plaintiff and the designated persons are G or the defendant prosperity transferred all of the management affairs to the non-corporate SPB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-corporate company”) on March 2, 201, and thus, it is not possible to pay retirement allowances.
However, as alleged in the defendant prosperity, even if there was a dispute between G and H, which is the former representative, over the power of representation of the defendant prosperity, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the designated parties had been employed by the defendant prosperity during the above period.