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

3. The indication of parties to the judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff’s unpaid wage claim was in service in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) from November 7, 2009 to May 18, 201, and retired from office. The Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 17.4 million was not received within 14 days from the date of retirement.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D in which the Suwon District Court 2013da28926 filed a lawsuit claiming the unpaid wage of KRW 17.4 million and damages for delay, and subsequently won the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on September 26, 2013, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 4, 2013.

B. On April 15, 2013, the Defendant, including the establishment of the Defendant, was established with the trade name of C Co., Ltd., and the instant lawsuit was pending on July 18, 2014, changing the trade name to B.

On the other hand, D registered newspaper business pursuant to Article 4 of the former Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc. (amended by Act No. 8852, Feb. 29, 2008) on Nov. 30, 2006, with the registration number E, E, F, and general daily newspapers by type. Pursuant to Article 14(3) of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, etc. on April 19, 2013 and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant filed a report on the succession of D’s status (hereinafter “instant report”) with the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on April 18, 2013 on the ground of the acquisition by transfer contract as above on April 18, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, and Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant asserts that the judgment of this case's defense still exists D who entered into a labor contract with the plaintiff, and the defendant is not qualified as a party to the lawsuit of this case.

However, in a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be the defendant in the lawsuit for performance is nominal by the plaintiff's own claim, and such judgment is absorptiond into the judgment on the propriety of the claim, so the person alleged as the obligor is a legitimate defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). Thus, the defendant's defense on the above principal

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1.