All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case constitutes not guilty for the following reasons, but the judgment of the court below convicted him of the facts charged of this case. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts.

D was an employee of H’s personal business chain, who is not an incorporated agricultural company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) prior to childcare leave. As such, D cannot be deemed to have been “retired” to the Defendant Company as indicated in the facts charged in the instant case.

B. D received retirement allowances from I at the time of the closure of the business. This is because D retires from the I according to its free will and completed a labor relationship, and then newly entered the Defendant company, it cannot be said that D’s work such as before and after childcare leave or the same level of wages should be guaranteed on the premise that D’s labor relationship continues.

2. Determination

A. In the case of transfer of business, unless there are special circumstances, the labor relationship of workers is continuously succeeded by the transferee, barring special circumstances.

In such a case, the fact that the employee received retirement benefits at the time of transfer of business does not necessarily mean that the employment relationship with the company is terminated and taken over and that new employment relationship with the company has been commenced. However, if the employee submitted a resignation document and received retirement benefits by his/her own, it may be deemed that he/she consented to the suspension of the continued employment. However, even if he/she received retirement benefits through a unilateral decision in accordance with the company’s management policy, the continuous employment relationship is not interrupted even

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da18608, Nov. 13, 2001). B.

D In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as to whether it was impossible for the Defendant Company to be deemed to have “satisfying”, D is the Defendant in the state of childcare leave around June 30, 2017, when I discontinued its business.