beta
(영문) 인천지방법원 2012.04.26 2011가합10323

임금 등

Text

1. The Defendant: 178,958,345 won to Plaintiff A; 140,243,490 won to Plaintiff B; and 159,707,738 won to Plaintiff C; and each of the above costs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The status D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) was organized into the automobile sales sector, the construction sector, and the head office management sector prior to the division of the company. Among them, the automobile sales sector was composed of direct passenger sales sector, the agency sales sector, the truck sales sector, the bus sales sector, the bus sales sector, and the import tea sales sector, and the Plaintiff A and B served as a vice head in the business atmosphere management team among the head office management sector.

B. D Company Division: (a) as the deficit of the direct passenger sales sector was accumulated among the car sales sector; (b) on September 29, 2006, D held a temporary general meeting of shareholders and resolved to divide the direct passenger sales sector with the highest profits at the time and the agency sales sector with the highest profits at the time and to establish the F Company (hereinafter “F Company”); (c) on October 1, 2006, D newly incorporated a new company and completed its corporate division registration.

C. On May 16, 2007 after the split-off of the instant company against the Plaintiffs, as to Plaintiff A on August 17, 2008, as to Plaintiff B, respectively, on April 1, 2008, D issued a retirement personnel order, and a new company issued a recruitment personnel order.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant transfer order”) the above retirement personnel order and employment personnel appointment order

D. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against D on October 8, 2010 on the ground that the instant transfer order was null and void. The said court, on April 28, 2011, filed a lawsuit for the verification of employer status with the Incheon District Court 2010Gahap1777, on the ground that the instant transfer order was null and void, and there is no evidence to prove that D obtained consent from the Plaintiff on April 28, 2011, and otherwise, the practice of unilaterally transferring D to a newly incorporated company without the consent of the employees is a normative fact, and is clearly approved or established as a de facto system.