1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant C Co., Ltd.: KRW 8,745,719 and its amount.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a corporation engaged in broadcast program production business, etc., Defendant B is its representative director, and the Plaintiff is PD belonging to the Defendant Co., Ltd.

B. Around January 2014, Defendant Company concluded a “D” external production contract, which is a stock company SBS and SBS broadcast program, and received KRW 2,50,000 per time from the SBS side.

C. From January 2014, the Plaintiff participated in the above “E” program filminging from June 23, 2015 to September 24, 2015, and dispatched SBS Chinese Markets from February 11, 2016 to August 21, 2016 to China.

On October 21, 2016, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 4 million a month as fixed wage by the Defendant Company until he/she retires from the Defendant Company.

E. The Defendant Company paid to the Plaintiff KRW 7,249,420 as retirement allowance, the sum of KRW 2,773,100 on March 9, 2017, and KRW 4,476,320 on March 14, 2017, while the instant lawsuit was pending.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 3, 8 evidence, Eul's 1, Eul's 4-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff asserted that the place where the defendant B actually resides and the location of the defendant company are the same, that the defendant company is the one of the defendant company, that the defendant company is the one of the defendant company, and that the defendant company paid the wages to the defendant company directly, and that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant B before the establishment of the defendant company and trusted not less than 10 years of employment to the defendant B, the defendant company and the defendant company must pay the unpaid wages and retirement allowances in accordance with the legal principles of the denial of legal personality merely because they are actually identical to the defendant B's personal business.

B. In light of the determination, if a company appears to be only an individual company of a person behind the corporate entity, it is a matter of principle.