1. The part against the plaintiff B in the judgment of the court of first instance, which exceeds the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 16, 2008, Defendant Company was established for the purpose of establishing and operating an infant physical fitness, training instructors for infant physical education, and manufacturing and selling early childhood education products, and entered into a program operation agreement with a department store or a kindergarten located in a large retailer, and let instructors belonging to Defendant Company operate educational programs developed by Defendant in the above cultural center or kindergarten.

B. From September 1, 2008 to May 31, 2014, Plaintiff A served as an instructor at each Defendant Company from June 1, 201 to August 31, 2014, and Plaintiff B retired.

The Plaintiffs, using the content developed by the Defendant Company, were engaged in infant sports education at kindergartens, department stores, cultural centers in large-scale discount stores, etc.

C. Before the establishment of the Defendant Company, from October 8, 2007 to October 23, 2013, the Defendant Company began to work in D, and the Defendant Company was serving in the Defendant Company from September 23, 2013 after the establishment of the Defendant Company filed a lawsuit claiming retirement benefits against the Defendant Company, and the retired E was rendered a judgment in favor of the part of the order to pay retirement allowances, which

Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2016Na22860 decided January 18, 2017 (Appeal Court) and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da211818 Decided May 16, 2017 (Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2017Da21818 Decided May 16, 201) (the appeal of the defendant company was dismissed and the judgment of the above appellate court became final

[) Meanwhile, from June 6, 2006 to May 31, 2014 after the establishment of the Defendant Company, the retired F, who had been working in D, filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Company seeking confirmation of invalidity of dismissal and payment of unpaid wages, and claiming the payment of retirement allowances in preliminary form, which was recognized as an employee in the said lawsuit, and was rendered a partial favorable judgment ordering the payment of the conjunctive claimant’s retirement allowance.

[Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2017Gahap102844 decided Feb. 22, 2018 (First Instance), Seoul High Court Decision 2018Na2017875 decided Sept. 10, 2019 (Appeal Court)].