1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiffs is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

On April 1, 2014, the plaintiffs asserted by the parties were employed in D, which is a taxi call service company.

The Defendant Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) acquired all business operations from D around April 2015, and the employment relationship of the employees affiliated D succeeded by the Defendant Company.

The Plaintiffs were dismissed on September 22, 2015 without any prior notice while working in the Defendant Company without changing working conditions, and were not paid retirement allowances from the Defendant Company.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A the total of KRW 3,478,968 as retirement allowance, KRW 2,181,141 as retirement allowance, KRW 3,520,341 as retirement allowance, KRW 1,339,20 as retirement allowance, KRW 3,520,341 as well as delay damages for the said money.

The defendant company's assertion that the defendant company did not take over all human and material organizations from D, but merely took over the external customers of D, so the employment relationship between the plaintiffs and D cannot be viewed as succeeded to the defendant company.

The plaintiffs were newly employed by the defendant company on May 1, 2015 after their withdrawal from D, and thus the continuous employment period is about four months.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to retirement allowances pursuant to the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits (hereinafter “Retirement Benefits Act”), but are not subject to prior notice of dismissal pursuant to Article 35(3) of the Labor Standards Act.

On the other hand, the defendant company notified the plaintiffs that they were employed for a limited period at the time of employment. Thus, the defendant company performed the duty of pre-determination of dismissal under Article 26 of the Labor

Therefore, the defendant company cannot respond to the plaintiffs' requests.

Judgment

In the civil trial of the legal principles on the claim for retirement allowance, even if it is not bound by the fact-finding of the criminal trial, the fact that the criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis is found guilty is a valuable evidence, so it is a civil trial.