1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and C had mutually invested from March 201 to operate a cafeteria with the trade name “E” located in Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”) as a joint venture.

On April 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a labor contract with C and worked at the instant restaurant on April 25, 201, and was subject to unfair dismissal from the Defendant on April 25, 2014, and thereafter served on July 14, 2014.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff wages of KRW 6,982,258, which is the period of unfair dismissal from April 26, 2014 to July 13, 2014 ( KRW 2,70,700,000 for April 2, 2000, KRW 1,132,258 for July 1, 200), and KRW 87,096 for wages on July 14, 2014, and the Plaintiff’s service period from April 25, 2012 (However, for one year from the date of entry, interim settlement of retirement pay was made) to July 14, 2014, as well as damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) The Defendant’s obligation is a member’s obligation and, barring any special circumstance, a partnership creditor may claim reimbursement in proportion to or uniform to each member’s share (Article 712 of the Civil Act). However, if the partnership’s obligation is particularly incurred due to an act of commercial activity for all union members, then the joint and several liability of union members should be determined by applying Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act to the entire amount (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da6919, Mar. 13, 198) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da6919, Mar. 13, 1998). The Defendant and C have mutually invested from March 201 to operate the instant restaurant as a joint business, and the Plaintiff concluded a labor contract with C around April 25, 201, and recognized the fact that they retired while serving at the instant restaurant.

According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff and C are in a partnership relationship with the plaintiff in relation to the operation of the restaurant of this case, and C entered into the above employment contract with the plaintiff for the operation of the restaurant of this case.