임금 등
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Basic Facts
From June 17, 2013 to June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff was employed by C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) as the chief of technology and was in charge of design and field management.
On April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff, who belongs to the social security system, such as employment insurance, is the employee of the non-party company, was changed to the defendant company.
D, the representative director of the non-party company, around April 2015, acquired the defendant company (mutual limited liability company E at the time of acquisition) and changed its trade name to C to a limited liability company on April 15, 2015. However, on September 23, 2015, the F, the current representative director, assumed office on the same day and changed its trade name to B.
【Non-party company and defendant company are the same company operated by D, which asserted that there is no dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, 21, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the judgment
D on April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff unilaterally changed from the non-party company to the Defendant company.
D As wages of KRW 23,261,502, retirement allowances of KRW 7,102,627, and retirement allowances of KRW 1,518,880, which were paid to the Plaintiff from December 1, 2014 to June 12, 2015, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 31,883,00,009 and delay damages.
In light of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s employment relationship between the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff merely changed the name of the business owner of the social security system to the Defendant Company formally on April 10, 2015 without maintaining the employment relationship with the Nonparty Company in light of the overall purport of pleadings: (a) the Plaintiff’s employment relationship between the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged; and (b) the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay wages, etc. to the Nonparty Company is not the Defendant Company.
Even if the plaintiff's assertion is entirely without so-called consent, the former is an enterprise engaged in the past labor contract.