2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an employment contract as of April 15, 2014, and the Defendant paid D’s unpaid benefits on behalf of the Defendant as agreed terms and conditions at the time.

However, from April 1, 2014 to August 16, 2014, the Defendant paid only part of KRW 1,1250,000 and KRW 2,3750,000 of the unpaid benefits of KRW 1,1250 and KRW 2,7550,000,000 of the remaining benefits and retirement allowances, not paying to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Article 1(1)1 of the Labor Contract Act (hereinafter “Labor Contract”) provides as evidence that conforms to the Plaintiff’s assertion that an employment contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant including the aforementioned special agreement.

Although there is no dispute between the parties that the stamp image next to the name of the defendant in the labor contract of this case is based on the defendant's seal imprint, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments in witness E's testimony, C prepared the labor contract of this case in the name of the defendant without being delegated with the right to prepare it by the defendant, and then it appears that C arbitrarily affixed the defendant's seal imprint. Thus, the presumption of the authenticity of the labor contract of this case is broken, the remaining evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the authenticity, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the above

Furthermore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above employment contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant only with the descriptions and images of Gap evidence 2 through 10 (including the number when there are various numbers), and there is no other evidence.

B. The plaintiff asserts that C has the right to enter into an employment contract under the defendant's name as the actual operator of the defendant, but the number is each number of evidence Nos. 2 through 10.