All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that even if the former Nitan Heavy Industries, which caused the deceased G, netF and the Plaintiff A, B, C, and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Plaintiff, etc.”) to work in the street, was dissolved in accordance with the Japanese law, and the Plaintiff, etc. was dissolved in accordance with the judgment of the lower court, and following the merger process, the Plaintiff may exercise the right to claim in this case against the Defendant for the former Nitan Heavy Industries.

In such a determination, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the standard for determining the identity of a foreign corporation and whether a foreign corporation violated good customs order and good customs in the application of foreign laws.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, found the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the defendant in Japan prior to the lawsuit in this case, and ruled that the Japanese judgment in this case was invalid by approving the Japanese judgment in this case as long as the Japanese judgment in this case judged that applying the "National Mobilization Act", the "National Disciplinary Order", and the "National Labor Order for Women" to the Korean Peninsula and the plaintiffs on the premise of the normative recognition that the colonial rule against the Korean Peninsula and Korean people is legitimate, as long as the Japanese judgment in this case is based on the normative recognition that it is valid, approving the Japanese judgment in this case, which contains the grounds for the judgment in this case, violates the good customs and other social order of

In so determining, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the violation of public order and good morals as the requirements for recognition of foreign judgments, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court, in accordance with the claim agreement, claims for damages of this case against the Defendant.