1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff had worked in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) from October 2, 2009 to February 8, 2012, and had not been paid wages. On June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming wages against Nonparty Company 2013da7602 with the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court) and was sentenced on June 11, 2013 that “the Nonparty Company shall pay to the Plaintiff 24,243,600 won with 20% interest per annum from February 23, 2012 to the day of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive thereafter.

B. On the other hand, the non-party company registered the newspaper business on November 30, 2006 with registration number E, No. F, and general daily newspapers by type.

C. On April 18, 2013, the Defendant (C Co., Ltd.) entered into a contract with the Nonparty Company to acquire the patent right to the “F” title of the ground newspaper and online newspaper of the Nonparty Company and the trademark right to the “F” in relation thereto (hereinafter “instant contract”). Pursuant to Article 14(3) of the Act on the Promotion of Newspapers, Etc. on the next day and Article 11(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Defendant (C Co., Ltd.) reported to the Mayor of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on the ground of the instant contract by succession to the status of the non-party company (F and registration number: E) registered as above.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-3, Evidence No. 2-1, Evidence No. 3-1, Evidence No. 5-1, and 2-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant succeeded to the status of the non-party company as a person who succeeded to the status of the non-party company and thus, constitutes a takeover of business, and thus, the non-party company's wage obligations against the plaintiff were comprehensively taken over accordingly. In addition, the defendant is merely a company established by G, the actual employer of the non-party company, to evade the debt owed to the workers, such as the plaintiff, and thus it constitutes abuse of corporate personality