A. On January 5, 2015, the Defendant registered the business and opened a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) with the representative, the location of the place of business, the first floor, and the trade name of Seocheon-si C as “D restaurant” as “D restaurant.”

B. The Plaintiff served in the instant restaurant from January 20, 2015.

C. On April 15, 2016, the Defendant reported the closure of the restaurant of this case.

The Plaintiff registered the instant restaurant as its representative around this time. D.

On November 27, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was not paid a retirement allowance with the Ministry of Employment and Labor in the Central and Medium Business Office.

The Ministry of the Central and Central Labor Office intended to investigate E as a witness due to the difference between the plaintiff and the defendant's arguments, but its location is unclear, and thus, sent to the Ministry of Incheon District Prosecutors' Office by the opinion of "Suspension of Witnesses".

E. On January 8, 2019, the written confirmation of the business owner with overdue wages, etc. issued by the head of the Ministry of Employment and Labor having jurisdiction over the Ministry of Strategy and Finance shall include the Plaintiff’s working period from January 20, 2015 to January 20, 2017, and the retirement pay in arrear as KRW 3,923,763.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 9, Eul's whole purport of pleading

2. Assertion and determination

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is entitled to KRW 2 million monthly salary from the Defendant. From January 20, 2015 to January 20, 2017, the Plaintiff served as a shop in the instant restaurant.

The defendant is obligated to pay retirement allowance of KRW 3,923,763 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

(2) On January 5, 2015, the Defendant’s assertion, Defendant, and E concluded a partnership agreement with the joint operation of a restaurant with each of 10%, 45%, and 45% of each of the investment and equity shares, and opened the restaurant of this case.

Since the plaintiff and the defendant are in the partnership relationship, they do not have the obligation to pay retirement allowances to the plaintiff.

A partnership between the original defendant and the original defendant.