1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, the appointed party) shall have KRW 3,883,920 against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, the appointed party), and the appointed party C (Counterclaim Defendant), respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter the Plaintiffs, hereinafter the Plaintiffs) serve as paintings from November 2009 to May 201, 201 to June 30, 201 on the part of the Defendant and Nonparty T Co., Ltd. located in Tong Young-si (hereinafter the “T”) and the Defendant Company.

The retirement was made.

B. Meanwhile, around August 20, 2010, the Defendant Company’s business purpose is the same ship mooring business as T, and the location of T was established as its principal office, and U’s wife, U’s representative director, is registered as the representative director of the Defendant Company, but the actual representative is U.S.

C. The retirement allowances that the plaintiffs did not receive while serving in T and the defendant company are as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 2, and 14, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the main claim

A. U.S. operating T has established a defendant company in order to evade the retirement allowance obligation against the plaintiffs, and both T and the defendant company are the same as U.S. private company, and its purpose of establishment, form and business are the same as that of U.S., so the defendant company shall pay each retirement allowance source as stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, which was not received during the service period of the plaintiffs.

B. In the event that an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in its form and content for the purpose of evading its obligations, the establishment of the new company constitutes abuse of the company system in order to achieve the unlawful purpose of evading its obligations.

In such a case, it is not permissible to assert that the above two companies have separate legal personality against the creditors of the existing company in the principle of trust and good faith, so the creditors of the existing company are entitled to claim the performance of obligations against either of the above two companies, and whether the existing company is incorporated with the intention to evade the obligations of the existing company.