1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall enter the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party in the separate sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2012, C operated a household production company at the Defendant’s factory located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and the Defendant had the aforementioned factory at the Kimpo-si before August 5, 2016, and around August 5, 2016, the above factory was changed to the Defendant’s domicile at the Defendant’s head office.

B. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties were not paid retirement allowances or wages after having worked in each of the above factories. Specifically, the Plaintiff did not receive retirement allowances of KRW 2,51,893 while working in each of the above factories from September 13, 2014 to September 25, 2015; KRW 2,264,324; KRW 2,795,000 as retirement allowances; KRW 2,795,00 as well as KRW 2,795,00 as wages for August 24, 2014; and KRW 1,708,3333,3333, respectively while serving in each of the above factories from August 19, 2015 to October 31, 2015.

C. Regarding the overdue wage, etc. against 15 foreign workers (including the plaintiff and the designated parties) who provided labor to the above household manufacturers, the written confirmation of the employer of the overdue wage, etc. issued by the director of the vice branch office of the Central Employment and Labor Agency of the Jung-gu Seoul District Office is indicated as “the name of the business place: G Kimpo branch, actual representative, and representative C: H.”

(hereinafter referred to in the following: (a) there is no dispute over the Employment and Labor Agency (based on recognition); (b) each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 8 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) is the Defendant who employs the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

However, even if it is not so, the defendant allowed C to use his name and operate his business, and the plaintiff and the designated parties provided the defendant with labor by misunderstanding the defendant as the business owner, so the defendant bears the responsibility as the expression manager under Article 24 of the Commercial Act or Article 14 of the Commercial Act, and the defendant shall execute the partnership agreement with C.