1. The plaintiffs' primary claims and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

2. The cost of the lawsuit is supported by the participation.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs filed a claim against the Plaintiff Intervenor for unpaid holiday allowance, etc., and received the judgment that the Plaintiffs paid the money as stated in the “amount of personal use” column of attached Table 1 and attached Table 2, and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is, on the ground that the said judgment became final and conclusive.

(Seoul High Court 2013Na59793, Seoul Southern District Court 2013Gahap18098).

Of the above rulings, the amount that the plaintiffs did not have been paid is each the amount stated in attached Form 1’s “the remaining principal” and “the remaining principal and damages for delay by July 23, 2014” and “the personal amount” in attached Form 2’s “the respective amounts.”

C. An intervenor is currently insolvent.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the business transfer and takeover contract was concluded with the intervenor and the defendant acquired the business from the intervenor. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the amount stated in the primary claim to the plaintiffs. Thus, we first examine whether the contract was concluded with the plaintiff's assistant intervenor and the plaintiff's business transfer and takeover contract.

In accordance with the above evidence, Gap evidence No. 4 exists, but according to Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 4 is recognized as a document prepared by Eul by misappropriation of the intervenor's seal. Thus, Gap evidence No. 4 cannot be used as evidence to acknowledge plaintiff's assertion.

In addition, the intervenor filed a separate lawsuit claiming damages against V and the defendant who was the representative director of the defendant, claiming that the majority of the documents concerning the contract transfer and assignment of claims in the name of the intervenor were forged, and even in this case, V argued that a considerable number of documents in the name of the intervenor were forged, and V used the intervenor's seal by stealing it.