1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. The following facts may be found in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) without dispute between the parties, or may be found by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.

C The type D, a type of business, operated the "E" mainly for the business of providing photographs, but the business was closed around December 201 due to business deterioration.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were employees of “E” even before the closure of business.

C. From January 2, 2012 to July 31, 2016, the Plaintiff served in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F and “G” located in the first floor (hereinafter referred to as “G” in this case’s business entity. The Plaintiff is a business entity that mainly carries on a photograph destroying service business like “E.”

From January 26, 2012 to July 31, 2016, the Defendant was registered as a business operator operating the instant business.

E. On July 31, 2016, the instant business entity was reported to discontinue its business.

F. On September 28, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that C did not pay retirement allowance of KRW 13,003,362 to the Plaintiff even if C actually operated the instant business, and that C was guilty of violating the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits. 2) C was indicted in summary as of November 24, 2016 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 201Da26637.

3 On December 8, 2016, the Seoul Central District Court issued a summary order of KRW 2.5 million to C, and the said summary order was finalized on January 26, 2017.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Defendant and C acquired the business rights of “E” from D, and operated the instant company in the name of the Defendant with the business registration of the instant company under the name of the Defendant.

In other words, the defendant invested the operating fund at the time of the commencement of the business of this case with C as well as the working conditions of workers in this case and also decided whether to discontinue the business of this case.