beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.05.22 2012가합4080

임금

Text

1. The rehabilitation company C, which is the receiver of the defendant rehabilitation company C, against the plaintiff A.

Reasons

1. Facts without any dispute (based on recognition), entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 5, 6, 11, 12, 22, 23, Eul evidence 3, 4, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. The parties’ relevant H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) was organized into the automobile sales sector, the construction sector, and the headquarters management sector prior to the division as follows. Among them, the automobile sales sector was comprised of the direct passenger sales sector, the agency sales sector, the truck sales sector, the bus sales sector, the bus sales sector, and the import train sales sector. However, Plaintiff B was the head of the said agency sales sector, and Plaintiff A was the vice head of the headquarters management sector, respectively.

B. As the deficit of the direct passenger sales sector was accumulated among the car sales sector, H’s division H decided on September 29, 2006 to divide the direct passenger sales sector with the highest profits at the time and the agency sales sector with the highest profits at the time and to establish an “I Stock Company” (hereinafter “new company”), and completed its corporate division registration by establishing a new company on October 1, 2006.

C. After the pre-division of the company with respect to the plaintiffs A on June 30, 2009, after the pre-division of the company with respect to the plaintiffs, on August 1, 2009, each H issued a retirement personnel order and a new company issued a recruitment personnel order without the plaintiffs' consent.

(hereinafter the above retirement personnel order and employment personnel appointment order are referred to as "the transfer order of this case").

On October 8, 2010, H filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of employer status with the Incheon District Court 2010Gahap17877 on the ground that the transfer order of this case was null and void.

On April 28, 2011, the above court moved the worker to another company from the enterprise to which he/she is employed, unlike the transfer or transfer of personnel in the same company with respect to the plaintiffs.