2. The costs of appeal, including the part arising from the supplementary participation, are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

(1) In addition, the grounds alleged by the plaintiffs in this Court are not significantly different from the contents alleged by the plaintiffs in the first instance court, and even if all the evidence submitted by the first instance court and this court are examined, the fact-finding and the judgment of the first instance court that rejected the plaintiffs' claims are justifiable). [The part to be dismissed or added] The following is added to the fourth and lower part of the first instance judgment, and the second and lower part "(2)" as "3."

“2) The Plaintiffs merely borrowed the form of the written consent and actually expressed the intention of the enemy, not the truth, in accordance with the direction of the Intervenor, who is the employer, and the Intervenor was aware of such circumstances and subsequently transferred the name in accordance with the above declaration of intention. As such, the said declaration of intention is null and void in accordance with Article 107 of the Civil Act.

The following is added to the 7th page of the judgment of the first instance. “The Plaintiffs sent a form of prior consent containing the above contents concerning the working conditions of the previous company to AB around September 28, 2016, and the four representatives, including AB, etc. first sent the prior consent around October 4, 2016 at N’s request. The prior consent was deleted. In light of the circumstances where the above contents were deleted, the Plaintiffs agreed to delete the above contents concerning the working conditions of the previous company prior to the meeting of the Pcafeteria, and most workers of the instant case were presented the prior consent from the beginning.

However, the above evidence and witness witness witness testimony.