A. On August 9, 2002, the Plaintiff established and operated the Defendant Company for the purpose of manufacturing and selling dental medical devices (the trade name at the time was “C” but changed to the trade name as of September 16, 2013), and sold 229,296 shares of the Defendant Company to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on December 19, 201.

B. Even after the sale of the above shares, the Plaintiff maintained the name of the representative director in the corporate register of the Defendant, and resigned on April 15, 2015, and thereafter, the name of the representative director in the Defendant Company was changed to E.

Even after that, the Plaintiff served as a business director of the Defendant Company, and from the beginning of May 2016, the Plaintiff worked at the Defendant’s broad name point.

C. Around June 2016, Nonparty Company: (a) took measures against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff violated the rules of employment and service, such as stopping of the GPS equipment without permission and neglecting work attitude; (b) taken a standby order from June 20, 2016 to June 27, 2016; and (c) held a disciplinary committee on July 25, 2016 and issued a suspension order for 30 days (from July 26, 2016 to August 24, 2016) against the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant disciplinary action”). D.

The Plaintiff started to work after returning to work from August 25, 2016, but on October 19, 2016, when the non-party company notified the holding of the disciplinary committee again on the ground that the Plaintiff’s working attitude was bad, the Plaintiff retired from the Defendant Company on November 6, 2016.

E. The Defendant Company’s pay payment date is the fifth day of each month, and the Defendant Company did not pay the Plaintiff wages of five million won during the instant disciplinary period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the instant disciplinary action against the plaintiff was taken by the non-party company, not the defendant company, the employer, but the non-party company without authority.