1. B, C, of the disposition that the Defendant rendered against the Plaintiff on November 18, 2013, to delete the source of loss of acquisition of insured status with employment insurance.

On August 13, 2013, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to delete the history of the insured status of 18 persons, including I registered as the insured of the Plaintiff’s workplace’s employment insurance.

(1) On November 18, 2013, the Defendant recognized the insured status of 17 persons, among the 17 insured persons whose employment insurance interest was deleted on August 19, 2013 (hereinafter “the first request for correction”). On August 28, 2013, the Defendant issued an additional request to delete the source of the insured status of 31 persons, such as K, registered as the insured at the Plaintiff’s workplace as the insured (hereinafter “the second request for correction”). On November 18, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff recognized the insured status of 14 persons, such as I, among the 17 insured persons whose employment insurance interest was deleted upon the first request for correction, and rejected the second request for correction.

[2] In the case of the instant disposition, 45 workers who are recognized as insured status of employment insurance (i.e., the 14 persons related to the first request for correction, 31 persons related to the second request for correction, and hereinafter “the instant workers”).

) [Attachment List of Workers] . [Attachment 6] . [Attachment 1] without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire argument of this case as to the legitimacy of the disposition of this case shall be asserted by the plaintiff representative director as to whether the disposition of this case is legitimate, such as the plaintiff's acquisition of the plaintiff company's stocks and management rights in M M's name, and the plaintiff company's official seal and M's seal shall be stolen, thereby forging the labor contract document by forging the plaintiff company's employment contract document.

Therefore, the Defendant’s disposition that recognized the insured status of the Plaintiff Company’s employees is unlawful on the premise that the instant employees are the Plaintiff Company’s employees.

Facts of recognition

L은 ㈜N과 그 계열사인 ㈜O, ㈜P, ㈜Q 등을 운영하면서 2011...