1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

On May 20, 2014, the plaintiff asserted by the parties, was employed in C, a taxi call service company.

Around April 2015, the Defendant Company (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) acquired all business from C, and the employment relationship of the employees of C was also succeeded by the Defendant Company.

The Plaintiff was dismissed on September 22, 2015 without any prior notice while working in the Defendant Company without changing working conditions, and was not paid retirement allowances from the Defendant Company.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,339,20 as retirement allowance, KRW 3,268,392 as retirement allowance, and KRW 3,268,392 as retirement allowance, and delay damages.

The defendant company's assertion that the defendant company did not take over all human and physical organization from C, but merely took over the external customer of C. Thus, the employment relationship between the plaintiff and C cannot be viewed as succeeded to the defendant company.

On May 1, 2015 after the withdrawal of C, the Plaintiff is a new employee of the Defendant Company, and the continuous employment period is about four months.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to retirement allowances pursuant to the proviso of Article 4(1) of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits (hereinafter “Retirement Benefits Act”), but is not subject to prior notice of dismissal pursuant to Article 35(3) of the Labor Standards Act.

On the other hand, the defendant company notified the plaintiff that he was temporarily employed at the time of hiring the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant company performed the duty of pre-determination of dismissal under Article 26 of the

Therefore, the defendant company cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

Judgment

In a civil trial on the legal principle of a retirement allowance claim, even if it is not bound by the fact-finding in a criminal trial, the fact that a criminal judgment already finalized on the same factual basis is material evidence, and thus, it is difficult to adopt a factual judgment in a criminal trial in light of other evidence submitted in the civil trial unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.