2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Therefore, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act as it is.

[Additional Judgment] The Defendant asserts that “The Plaintiff and the Defendants, as alleged by the Plaintiff, provided labor to the Defendants, are insufficient objective evidence to recognize that the Defendants provided labor, as so argued, ② the Plaintiff and the Defendants agreed to terminate the instant contract on August 2015 and pay labor costs from September 2015 to the relevant employees directly. However, according to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments as to the evidence Nos. 3, 7, 8, 10 through 12 (including documentary numbers with several numbers), the Plaintiff could sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendants dispatched to the lower-ranking workers from July 21, 2015 to September 21, 2015 pursuant to the instant contract and carried out the manufacturing work ordered by the Defendants, as so argued. Furthermore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants agreed that the instant contract was concluded around August 2015, or that the Defendants directly paid labor costs from September 2015 to the relevant employees on account of the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the contract. Accordingly, it is insufficient to accept the Defendants’s allegation that the Defendants’ agreement was concluded.

2. The Defendants, as joint business operators, are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 171,610,356 pursuant to Article 57(1) of the Commercial Act, and the judgment of the court of first instance from December 10, 2015 to July 8, 2016, following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint sought by the Plaintiff.