1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 27,438,547 as well as 20% per annum from April 20, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. The facts acknowledged are that Defendant C engaged in wholesale business, including lubric oil, in the trade name “E” (hereinafter “previous business entity”) in the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, and the Plaintiff worked at the previous business entity on July 25, 2006.

On March 9, 2015, Defendant B opened a new business entity called “F” (hereinafter “new business entity”) at the business location, and commenced wholesale business, including lubrication, and the Plaintiff, G, H, I, and J, working at the previous business entity, had the Plaintiff, G, I, and J, working at the new business entity.

However, I and J have been employed in the “K” operated in the name of the spouse of Defendant C while working in the name of Defendant C, and have been processed in the account book, and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff were in the form of newly preparing a labor contract of KRW 36 million as of March 10, 2015, which is set forth as annual salary of KRW 36 million.

On the other hand, even after the establishment of a new business entity under Defendant B’s name, Defendant C had an indication of “representative” of the above business entity.

On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff retired from a new enterprise. Defendant B paid KRW 3,413,508 to the Plaintiff as retirement allowance for labor from March 11, 2015 to April 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 5 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 7 and 10 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. (i) Whether a labor relationship is succeeded, (ii) a company organized for a certain business purpose, i.e., a company that maintains its identity and transfers its human and material organization as a whole, and in the case of a transfer of business, the labor relationship of workers is continuously succeeded by the transferee, barring special circumstances, and the fact that the employee received retirement benefits at the time of the transfer of business does not necessarily mean that the labor relationship with the company is terminated and new labor relationship with the company that

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da18608, Nov. 13, 2001). In the instant case, the above facts of recognition are based on the evidence as seen above.