2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the instant disciplinary action against the plaintiff is a disposition taken by the non-party company, not the defendant company, which is the employer, but the non-party company, which is not related to the plaintiff, and thus, it is reasonable to deem that the defect is significant and obvious and void.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 5,000,000 and damages for delay during the instant disciplinary action period, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant Company’s assertion (1) the Defendant Company asserted that: (a) the Defendant Company’s notice of attendance of the Disciplinary Committee (Evidence A2) and notice of disciplinary action (Evidence A3) against the Plaintiff’s company is merely mere mere acceptance; however, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

[In light of the fact that the contents of the above disciplinary committee's notice of attendance and the notice of disciplinary action clearly state the defendant company's position as the defendant company, all of the above documents are written in the name of the non-party company. In particular, the disciplinary action of this case is clearly stated as "F of the representative director D Co., Ltd., the disposition authority's disciplinary action of this case" in light of the fact that it was clearly stated as "F of the non-party company." Therefore, the above argument of the defendant

(2) The defendant company judged that it is practically impossible to take its own personnel measures due to the unique characteristics of the status that the plaintiff was the former representative director of the defendant company, and to G, H, and I, who are individual disciplinary members constituting the non-party company and the disciplinary committee, the parent company.