2. B

3. C.

4. D;

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

This court's reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is difficult to change the facts and judgments recognized by the judgment of the court of first instance even if the evidence (written or image of evidence A 32 through 48) examined by the court of first instance is presented.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

3. Determination on the plaintiffs' application for resumption of argument

A. After the closing of argument in the trial, the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiffs") conducted the same work throughout the period of time after the affiliated partner company was changed several times, but the former partner company did not pay retirement allowances, and the succeeding partner company did not have an independent partner company in light of the fact that the partner company paid continuous service allowances including the working period in the previous partner company. ② The defendant had the plaintiffs confirm the production plan, inappropriate status, inventory quantity, semi-finished goods, etc. prepared by the defendant production management team through the defendant's management server, inventory status list, etc., and accordingly, conducted the work. ③ When considering the fact that the partner company was changed, the former partner company did not pay retirement allowances, and the succeeding partner company did not pay retirement allowances to the former partner company, the subcontractor company did not have any independent partner company, and ② the defendant submitted the defendant's request to resume the work using the production management team's operation order as evidence, and submitted the defendant's initial instruction and dispatch order as reference materials to the defendant's employees.

B. On the other hand, the evidence submitted, including the evidence to be submitted by the plaintiffs, was insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant ordered, decided, or participated in the instruction, decision, or treatment of workers after the closure of a collaborative company, establishment of a new collaborative company, succession of employment, or succession, or ② the defendant ordered or decided the plaintiffs to directly work methods, order, work speed, etc., or set specific work methods, work order, work speed, etc., or more specific work methods than the defendant's employees' response to questions or personally assistance to the plaintiffs, or the defendant's employees ordered correction of the former and individually inappropriate work site law beyond the extent that it was examined whether the completed goods were defective in the contract, and it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiffs were subject to the order of temporary placement order of the plaintiffs by the date of pleading 20 years including the evidence submitted by the defendant, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiffs were subject to the order of temporary placement order of the plaintiffs by the date of pleading 16 years including in-house subcontracting.

Judges Lee Hyun-woo

Judges Gin-dong