2. Defendant D Co., Ltd. is the Plaintiff A on 119,988.

The defendant company is a company operating the import-sale business of L, which was operated by H, and the plaintiff worked in the defendant company from May 2005 to April 2014.

B. As H died on August 17, 2011, Defendant E, the wife, inherited H’s property 3/7 shares, Defendant F and G, each of 2/7 shares.

Defendant E was appointed as an internal director of the Defendant Company on August 17, 2011, and retired on August 18, 2014, but was re-employed as an internal director on March 26, 2015.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s heir” in total, including Defendant E, F, and G). 2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s Defendant Company A, and Defendant E’s claim for extradition

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant E agreed to the Plaintiff’s transfer from the previous workplace to the Defendant Company A in return for the Plaintiff’s transfer from the previous workplace to the Defendant Company, and thus, it is obligated to deliver it to the Plaintiff. In addition, since the instant transfer is kept in the Defendant Company’s warehouse, and Defendant E agreed to the instant transfer is the representative of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company is obligated to deliver the instant transfer to the Plaintiff A jointly or jointly with the Defendant E. (2) The Defendant Company and the Defendant E did not have any such an arrangement.

Even if Defendant E is obligated to deliver the instant vehicle to Plaintiff A, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant Company is jointly or jointly obligated with Defendant E.

B. Determination Gap evidence No. 11 (the authenticity of the document is presumed to have been established due to the lack of dispute on the part of the defendant Eul's seal imprint. Defendant Eul has a defense that the document was forged by the plaintiff, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the testimony of the witness Eul alone was forged by the plaintiff Eul, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.).