1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was dismissed while serving as an internal director at the Defendant Company, and the Defendant Company (the name of the Defendant Company was transferred to C, but the name was changed to B, which is currently named after the agreement on the purchase and sale of shares and the acquisition of the right of management with the same international company as the following) is a corporation engaging in the design and service business of semiconductors, electronic equipment and related facilities, etc.

B. On May 6, 2011, D, the representative director of the Defendant Company, entered into an agreement on the purchase and sale of shares and acquisition of management rights of the Defendant Company with the Dong International Institute Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant acquisition and acquisition agreement”). The Plaintiff worked as the vice president of the Defendant Company prior to the said acquisition and acquisition agreement, and thereafter worked as an internal director.

C. On May 12, 2011, the Defendant Company and the Plaintiff drafted a letter of undertaking with the following content:

(hereinafter “instant letter of undertaking”). 1. D and Dong International Venture Co., Ltd. entered into an agreement on May 6, 201 with respect to a share purchase and sale agreement (this case’s acquisition agreement).

2. As of May 12, 2011, the Plaintiff served in the Defendant Company as of May 12, 201 (the closing date of the instant acquisition agreement) and is to serve for the Defendant Company for three years from the closing date of the instant acquisition agreement (minimum period of service).

3. The defendant company shall provide the plaintiff with employment at the defendant company as core personnel during the minimum obligatory period of employment and compensation therefor.

On December 21, 2012, Defendant Company notified the Plaintiff of his dismissal, and dismissed the Plaintiff on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant Company asserted that the Plaintiff had entered into an agreement on employment succession and guarantee with the Plaintiff as stated in the instant promise, and the Defendant Company is in the position of the business owner against the Plaintiff, who is an employee even after the instant transfer agreement was concluded.