1. Defendant B’s KRW 47,652,114 as well as 5% per annum from January 7, 2014 to November 16, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Based on the facts, the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) is a corporation operating the automobile manufacturing business, etc., and the A non-regular branch of the Plaintiff Company (hereinafter “the instant branch”) is both within the same Ulsan factory (hereinafter “the same factory”). As such, among the Ulsan factory, it is below the intra-company partner company (hereinafter “Plaintiff Company”) among the Ulsan factory, to omit a specific factory.

In the labor-management agreement of March 21, 2016, the term "in-house subcontractor" used the term "in-house subcontractor" in the labor-management agreement between the plaintiff company and the plaintiff company, there are many discussions about the legal relationship between the plaintiff company and the plaintiff company.

It is a subdivision of the metal trade union under the National Federation of Democratic Trade Unions (hereinafter referred to as the "metallic Trade Unions") composed of workers belonging to the union.

around July 2013, at the instant Branch Association, Defendant B was the representative of Ulsan Factory 4 Factory, Defendant C was the head of policy department, and was a member of the Dispute Countermeasures Committee of the instant Branch Association.

A evidence 1, No. 14-7, and the purport of the whole pleadings. The branch of this case has continued to demand the plaintiff company to convert all of the workers belonging to the branch of this case into regular employees of the plaintiff company to the regular employees of the plaintiff company.

The plaintiff company participated in the action for the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission against the chairperson of the National Labor Relations Commission against D, who is an employee of the branch of this case, and the revocation of the decision for review of unfair labor practices.

On July 22, 2010, the court of final appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4367) rendered the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case hereinafter referred to as "the judgment of the Supreme Court in this case") to the effect that since the plaintiff company was dispatched to the worker and used D for more than two years, the plaintiff company is deemed to have directly employed D in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations.

The judgment of the appellate court was rendered and it was remanded in accordance with the purport of the Supreme Court judgment of this case.