1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, the primary cause of the Plaintiff’s primary claim, as employed by the Defendant, provided the Defendant with labor from January 4, 2006 to November 30, 2016 at the branch office (hereinafter “branch of this case”) which is the Defendant’s workplace, and retired from the Defendant, but did not receive the total retirement allowances of KRW 5,88,543 from the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 5,88,543 and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff was employed by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), provided labor from January 4, 2006 to November 30, 2016, and received wages from D. The Defendant did not employ the Plaintiff as an employee of D.

Upon request of D, the defendant is merely a representative in the name of the party who entered the name in the registry of the sub-branch of this case, and the actual owner of the sub-branch of this case is D. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit

C. Even if the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim is alleged, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 5,888,543 to the Plaintiff as the nominal owner under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, as the Plaintiff borrowed the Defendant’s name as a business operator registered under the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant branch office.

The defendant's assertion was well aware that the defendant was merely the nominal lender and the actual owner of the instant sub-branch was D, and thus the defendant is not liable for the nominal lender.

2. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff regarding the primary cause of claim alone is insufficient to view the Defendant as the owner of the instant sub-branch or as the Plaintiff’s employer who provided labor at the instant sub-branch, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Rather, according to the following facts, the defendant seems to have lent the defendant's name to D to use the defendant's name for business registration of the sub-branch of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection.