1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the cause of the claim is the worker who entered into a labor contract with Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant Company from May 201 to October 3, 2013, and the Defendant Company did not pay the Plaintiff wages of KRW 251,612 and retirement allowances of KRW 12,734,432.

Since Defendant B and Defendant C are practically one of the individuals or companies, they must be denied legal personality, and Defendant B and Defendant C should have the same responsibility as the Defendant Company.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In fact, Defendant Company was established on May 23, 201 for the purpose of running wholesale and retail business of sports supplies, and its representative is Defendant C and the auditor are Defendant B.

The defendant company registered its business by providing wholesale and retail services, sports goods, sports goods rental services, advertising agency services, etc.

On the other hand, the defendant C and the defendant B registered (individual) businesses with the trade name "E" as the type of business, health clubs, and dominants.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to whether the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant Company, and the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire arguments, it is recognized that the Plaintiff was working at the health club called “E” from May 201 to October 3, 2013, and that the Plaintiff was transferred to the bank account, and that the remitter was the “B” or “F”.

However, even according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 10 submitted by the plaintiff, the facts that the lawsuit was initiated on the premise that the defendant Eul and five other persons who worked in the above health club are individual business operators (U.S. District Court 2015Da42434), and in particular, Gap evidence Nos. 7-10 through 14, the customers of the above health club paid the PT price by credit card.