2. Attached 1. The plaintiffs are confirmed to be in the position of each of the defendant's employees, as shown in Attached 1. 31 through 31, 36 through 41, 58 through 61, 69 through 73, and 77 through 84.

3. The defendant expressed his/her intention to employ each of the plaintiffs listed in Appendix 1. 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, and 85 through 87, annexed hereto.

4. The appeal as to the plaintiffs' primary claims listed in Appendix 1 and Nos. 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, 85 through 87 are dismissed, respectively.

5. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A. The Defendant entered into a contract with in-house subcontractors (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s partner companies”) for some of the duties of manufacturing and selling different kinds of other fish and rubber products using 5,000 full-time workers at the Gwangju Mine-gu’s head office and Gwangju factory, Jeonnam G and Gyeonggi-si, which are engaged in the manufacturing and selling of different kinds of rubber and rubber products.

B. The plaintiffs are those who are employed in the manufacturing process by entering the defendant's Gwangju factory or grain factory cooperation company on the date stated in the membership list of the plaintiffs' partner companies, membership dates, and employment logs of the defendant's attached Table 2. The plaintiffs are those who provide labor in the manufacturing process by moving the relevant factory. Even though the company's affiliated company was changed after their entry, the new subcontractor actually succeeded to the employment of the new subcontractor without suspending the work or changing the management process in the defendant's factory, and they are employed in the cooperation company's name column of the same Table at the time of the institution of this case.

C. Around August 2008, DG and DH asserted that their work form constitutes dispatch work under the Defendant’s grain plant under the jurisdiction of DI (representative) and filed an application for correction of discrimination against the Defendant, etc. against the Defendant, etc. at the Jeonnam Regional Labor Relations Commission around that time.

D. On February 10, 2009, the Defendant received a corrective order from the Gwangju Regional Labor Office to the effect that “DG et al. constitutes temporary agency work,” and filed a lawsuit seeking revocation, such as direct employment order, with the Gwangju District Court 2009Guhap1761 on June 17, 2010, but was sentenced to the judgment against June 17, 2010. While the Defendant appealed as the Gwangju High Court 201Du1346, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment on January 27, 2011 and was sentenced to the dismissal of the appeal. The Defendant appealed as the Supreme Court 201Du6097, but the appeal was dismissed on July 1, 2011.

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s factory goes through several processes to manufacture different fishing. The main process is the refining process 1), semi-finished products (including pressure processing 2), pressure processing 3), foundation processing 4), gender processing 6), and type processing 7), and inspection process8). Of those, those related to the Defendant’s collaborative company are as follows: (i) the loading and unloading process of raw materials; (ii) the crying process; (iii) the cryping process; (iv) the cryping process; (iv) the TRton process (b) the TRton process (b) the PA operating process; (iv) the open-tightton process; (v) the inspection process; and (v) the inspection process; and (v) the contents as follows.

1) The loading and unloading process of raw materials is the loading and unloading process of raw materials supplied to the defendant company in a fixed place after loading and unloading of raw materials, transporting stored raw materials in the necessary process, or transporting each process's raw materials to the defendant company for transporting them to another factory.

2) The studio process is part of the “S-Calender’s process”, which is part of the voltage process, and is a process that results in ethyl stuff and leads ethyls to the main body of S-Calender by putting them up in order to withdraw ethyl code 10) in rubber in the voltage process and combining ethyl code into a vertical bag in order of withdrawal.

3) The scrap scrap process is part of the foundation and the base process, which includes: (a) the Belgium Re-Foundation work, the installation work of Gum-Edgel1), the repair of ethyl 12) and the transport equipment 13; (b) the replacement and repair of drh 14); (c) the classification of laps’s laps’s laps’ laps’ laps’ laps’ laps’ laps’ laps’ laps’ laps’ 15; (d) the collection of laps’s laps’ 16); and (e) the management of half-finished hours’ 17).

4) Before sending presses with external shapes (GREEN CASE) from the scopic process to the scopic process, the scopic process is a process in which the scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics (outcopic scopics)

5) TBR pattern operations include the transport of defective parts among rubber 18 made from the voltage process, the trout inferior treatment work carried to the above machinery in order to recycle them to the rubber source 19) that can be used by inserting them into BB 14 machinery after loading, the trout rubber work made from the voltage 20) in which defective parts are loaded, the trout rubber work in BB 14 from the rubber source to find and remove steel sculptures contained in the rubber source if rubber source is separated from the rubber source, the string work, the removal of the rubber tank attached to the string, and the removal of the string part from the rubber source to reuse it again.

6) The PAton process is, in the PA process, reprocessing in order to reuse semi-finished products of the PA in which the PA process, from which interdar rubber and artificial rubber are attached to a PA process, it is the work to reprocessing in order to ensure that the PA’s remaining quantity (hereinafter referred to as “final part”) or inferior semi-finished products can be recycled after attaching interdar rubber and artificial rubber to a plastic process (Separation of interdar rubber and artificial rubber).

7) Open-tightton operations are reprocessing to reprocessing rubber used as inferior products in each process, or reprocessing to sell or dispose of such rubber that has not been used, and they are made into rubber that can be re-processed by inserting rubber in the foundation’s length or width, or any other reason.

8) The inspection process is a process that inspects saves produced through a gender-type process and a saveying process, and transfers saves that passed a performance test to products by conducting a saves test, screening, and performance test on saves produced from saves produced.

9) Packing process is a process that packages a different typosis when it is deemed that it is normal by the inspector to conduct an inspection. The packaging process consists of trawing and irpirpiriros (the protection prevention between tubes and irpirs) to string them, trawing all irpirs into packaging sites, packing operations that cover the whole irpirs into a car factory, and internal control operations that cover irb and irpirpirirs into a irpirpirs into a car factory.

[Ground of Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 64, 65 through 72, Eul evidence Nos. 7, 10, 19, 20, and 39 (including various numbers), the witness of the first instance court, DK, DL, U, P, DM, DN, DO, DP, DP, R, V, X, Q, and the purport of the whole pleadings, each of the testimony and arguments of the first instance court,

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

The plaintiffs claim that the plaintiffs are in the status of the defendant's worker. Preliminaryly, they sought the defendant's obligation to employ the plaintiffs as stated in the plaintiff's list Nos. 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, and 85 through 87 of the plaintiff's list No. 1. 1. The defendant's partner companies were selected without due process, have no physical facilities or human resources, and there is no substantial authority to employ the plaintiffs, but the organization of which is established for the contract work and terminated upon termination of the contract work. Unlike the contract agreement, the defendant paid the contract price excessively to the defendant's partner companies or unit price under the contract, regardless of the contract price, and the defendant was directly paid to the plaintiffs, regardless of the contract price, the contract price was paid to the defendant's partner companies, and the defendant did not pay the difference between the defendant and the defendant's non-regular workers' labor union in the form of the contract and the contract price.

○ Even if there was no implied employment contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, the contract concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant’s subcontractor constitutes a disguised employment contract, and its substance constitutes a disguised employment contract. As such, the Plaintiffs listed in [Attachment 1] through 31, 36 through 41, 58 through 61, 69 through 73, and 77 through 84 as of July 1, 2007 are continuously used by the Defendant, who was the user company prior to July 1, 2007, for more than two years, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the former Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 8076 of Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter “former Dispatch Act”), and there was a direct employment relationship between the said Plaintiffs and the above Plaintiffs, and the Defendant’s duty to protect or use temporary agency workers in excess of 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 78-17.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) Establishment and operation of the Defendant’s collaborative companies

A) The Defendant’s subcontractor was the representative of the Defendant, and was established by taking over the office work from the previous employer at the time of concluding the contract with the Defendant, and was immediately closed upon the termination of the contract with the Defendant.

B) In relation to the establishment and closure of the Defendant’s partner companies, the Defendant provided the Defendant’s partner companies with telephone systems in the Defendant’s factory and the Defendant’s name free of charge, and paid the Defendant’s partner companies the cost of discontinuance of business or acquisition of business.

C) Although the Defendant’s subcontractors completed their business registration individually, they did not own particular physical facilities, special technology, etc. except for the office fixtures, and only one representative was working, except for a large number of workers, and were engaged in services contracted by the Defendant for the duration.

D) The Defendant’s subcontractor, with the rules of employment, recruited workers, concluded an employment contract individually, withheld the wage and withheld the income tax. The subcontractor or its representative purchased four major insurance, such as the National Pension and Medical Insurance, under the name of the subcontractor or its representative, exercised the right of personnel by receiving an application for temporary retirement from the workers, and provided the workers with working clothes, etc.

E) On February 2010, the representative council of the subcontractor A requested the Defendant to conduct collective bargaining to reduce wages at the National Franchisive Branch of the Korea Gold-gu Trade Union A, but the negotiation was concluded, which led to the occurrence of the full-scale strike from April 30, 2010, and the Defendant’s collaborative company participated in the lock-out on May 8, 2010.

(ii) the conclusion and terms of the contract;

A) In the past, the Defendant’s subcontractor entered into a contract with the Defendant only on the basis of ‘duty of loading and unloading of raw materials' or ‘duty of loading and unloading' for the purpose of contract, semi-bryton (TBRton), Ritonton, P/A, Belgium recycling duty' or ‘manufacturing and support department', APU duty or ‘the duties of screening products of two-story products, passive trading duty' or ‘duty of screening product packaging' or ‘duty of inspecting product packaging duty' or ‘duty of classifying product packaging', and entered some of the contract cost into a contract with the Defendant only on the basis of a fixed amount per month, and a part of the contract amount is calculated on the basis of work quantity.

B) On April 2010, the Defendant selected a new subcontractor through an open recruitment procedure, such as making a public announcement of the recruitment of 1 or 2 new subcontractors by process as a result of the filing of a petition for entering the basic facts of DG, etc., but the criteria for the selection evaluation were different from the details of the initial public announcement, and the unit price stated by the applicants was merely approximately KRW 2.5 million, and some applicants were selected without stating Nama.

C) On July 21, 2010, the Defendant selected a new subcontractor through the above recruitment process, and entered into a majority of the above contract terms and conditions. On December 21, 2010, immediately before the instant lawsuit, the Defendant entered into a contract, “a list of work standards, etc., specifying the contents of the contract work, attached a list of work standards, etc., stating the details of the contract work, and the content that the contract cost for certain duties is to be calculated based on the work volume.”

D) The contract entered into between the Defendant’s subcontractor and the Defendant includes the following:

Article 2(2)(2) In the event of a change in the contract cost, a decision shall be made through consultation with the Defendant (the Defendant). (3) In the event of additional matters other than the normal contract cost, A and B shall consult and settle the separate contract cost in accordance with this contract. (4) In the event of a change in the price, wage index, economic situation, and other inevitable reasons for the change in the contract cost.

In the event of the occurrence of the contract costs, the contract costs may be adjusted after consultation with Gap.Article 6 (Inspection of Machinery, Tools, and Consumption Materials)The machinery, tools, and expendable materials required to Eul in the performance of the contract duties shall be removed from the specific parts and tools attached to Gap's facilities and machines and shall be borne by Eul.Article 8 (Site Agent)(1) shall coordinate contact with Gap as to the performance of the contract duties and contract for individual orders on behalf of Eul, and appoint a person who directly administers and directly directs the workers engaged in the work of this contract (hereinafter referred to as "field agent").(2) Gap shall act as a contractor for the performance of this contract with Eul, and shall not act directly against Eul's workers.Article 15 (Liability for Damages)(1) shall compensate for damages inflicted on Eul or his employees while performing the contract duties.

E) The previous contract agreement entered into by the Defendant’s collaborative companies did not include the agreement on the provision of security for the partner companies’ performance, but after the above petition case, “B” included that “B shall pay to A (the Defendant) cash, real right, or certificate of performance guarantee insurance equivalent to or more than KRW 50 million in order to guarantee the performance of this contract.”

F) At the time when several months elapsed since the conclusion of the contract, the representative of the Defendant’s subcontractor either set up a collateral security in line with the above collateral agreement for the Defendant or received a contract performance guarantee insurance policy, and some of them were not included in the above contract but provided.

G) The Defendant’s subcontractor filed a claim for the payment of the contract with the Defendant, along with the past employees’ number of workers and the past employees’ records of work, and the Defendant also prepared and managed the comprehensive employment report by service company, and paid the contract cost based on the number of employees, etc.

H) After the change of the contract price for certain duties based on the quantity of work, the Defendant’s collaborative companies confirmed the quantity of work from the relevant department and claimed the contract price, but the Defendant applied the premium rate to the Defendant’s collaborative companies, even if the quantity of work falls short of the standard quantity, or calculated and paid the contract price by applying the premium rate to the Defendant’s collaborative companies, exceeding the agreed price fluctuation.

I) The Defendant’s collaborative companies have been paid the amount equivalent to the annual final payments, the amount of dispute settlement, the amount of school expenses, the amount of encouragement, and the amount equivalent to the four major premiums during the process of implementing the said contract. After the standard for calculating the contract cost was changed to the quantity of work, the Defendant’s collaborative companies were also paid the amount of labor company’s expenses required in the process of labor disputes.

(j) The Defendant’s subcontractor was requested by the Defendant to provide services, such as a funeral, a tombstone, or a case preparation, which is not provided for in the initial contract, from the Defendant, and fulfilled the request, and received the payment from the Defendant as additional contract expenses.

3) The work process and contents of workers belonging to the Defendant’s subcontractor

A) Workers of the Defendant’s collaborative companies worked in line with the working hours of the Defendant’s employees by using materials and equipment provided by the Defendant at the Defendant’s factory. The working place differs from the working place of the Defendant’s employees or differs from some different distance.

B) The work content of the Defendant’s subcontractor’s employees was a relatively simple work that does not require any particular technology by participating in a specific process among the manufacturing processes, as seen earlier.

C) The Defendant, including the work contents of the employees belonging to the Defendant’s subcontractor, set up a flow chart of process, technical guidelines for manufacturing process by process, management standards, safety rules, etc., and attached them to the subcontractor, or attached them to the work site in the factory. The Defendant determined the work contents on the same day and entered them in the work site, or prepared and distributed work instructions, etc.

D) During the loading and unloading process of raw materials, the Defendant’s employees engaged in the work of loading and unloading raw materials stored by the Defendant’s partner and transporting them to a certain loading place. During that process, the Defendant’s employees informed the subcontractor’s employees of the contents of the work by determining the shipment volume, stuffed volume, loading place, transportation order and the change thereof in addition to confirming the quantity and quantity, and by attaching documents, such as “the delivery on the right right, priority, and prohibition of use.” After the instant lawsuit was filed, the Defendant sent the subcontractor’s representative or on-site agent the contents of the work.

E) In the studio process, the Defendant’s employees were performing the work of withdrawing and arranging ethyl codes in a closed space separated from the crystudio to induce S-Cender to the main body. Defendant employees sent signals to the partner company employees of the subcontractor in advance, and sent signals to the partner company in advance, so that the partner company would be able to fluorize the luore board, and then sent the signal to the partner company, and then notified the ethyl code standards, etc. to be worked on the day other than s-Calendler’s main body and then enter them into the luthum report or deliver the raw material ex-factory report. During the voltage process, the ethyl code was applied directly to the partner company’s assistance. The Defendant, before and after the filing of the instant lawsuit, is obliged to use the lux code as an employee of Gwangju Factory instead of informing the partner company of the request for the lux code by making it known to the partner company. Meanwhile, the Defendant is obliged to use the lux code as an employee of Gwangju plant.

F) In the scrap scrap process, the Defendant’s employees using a Belgium recycling machine to reproduce and reproduce the rubber source in which the defect occurred in the process of the sex, attach a Gum-Edge and directly repair or gather the defective transport equipment to repair it to the repair shop. In the process, the Defendant’s employees informed the Defendant’s employees of the contents of the work by attaching a camera, such as “the use of the rubber source and transport equipment as much as possible for recycling, shot-Edge attachment,” or “quiqui repair needs,” such as “the use of the rubber source and transport equipment subject to work and the transport equipment.”

G) In the press process, the Defendant’s partner distributed medicines (outwards) to GREE CAS CASE to send the Defendant’s partner company to the Category A process and carried out the work of distributing them on the bring. In that process, the Defendant’s employees determined the product loading direction (outboards) that has a significant impact on the quality of the product in the Category A process through a certain test and notified the product loading direction to enter the product in the front of the machinery, indicating inappropriate loading, and notifying the cooperation company’s employees or on-site agents of the contents of distribution, including “dual dyna, personnel transfer dyna,” etc. In the case of Gwangju factory, the Defendant had the Defendant take charge of the Defendant’s work by up to 2011.

H) In the TBR Riton process, employees of the Defendant’s subcontractor loaded and arranged defective rubber by type, and arranged it by side to ensure that rubber does not fall from rubber in the vegetable BB14 machine, and the Defendant’s employees performed the work to find out and remove the hacks from the recycled rubber using a stalphical string machine, and in the process, they performed the work to cover the strings well. In addition, the Defendant’s employees notified the subcontractor’s employees of the contents of the work by separately designating rubber to reproduce in the string machine, operating the recycling machine, and attaching the stalphical or hacks sign to the string workers. The Defendant’ employees arranged the work site with the stalphian employees during external audit by June 2010, but the employees performed the work independently from the 10th of the 10th of the 10th of the 20th of the 20th of the 20th of the 2010.

I) Under the PA, the Defendant’s partner company’s work of separating sprink rubber and spton rubbers using PA spton machines and operating spton machines. In the process, the Defendant’s employees were informed to the partner company by stating that “in addition to bringing the product to work and bringing the processed product, the spton will be treated at the end” or attaching special marks to the partner company. Meanwhile, in the case of spton factories, the Defendant had the partner company and the employee of the Defendant perform the PA PA spton work alternates by changing the time period. However, from December 208, the Defendant did not place his employees.

(j) In the open-speton process, employees of the Defendant’s collaborative company engaged in the work of putting rubbers that require reprocessing into open and crowdfundings and bringing them into the place of sale rubber loading if it is impossible to do so. In that process, employees of the Defendant informed the subcontractor of the details of their work to the subcontractor by attaching the joints such as “a wide size, thickness, central cutting, 's rubber', and 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '',' and requesting the on-site agent, etc. to rectify the 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ' ' ' ' ' ' ''. By June 2010, the cooperation company

(k) In the inspection process, the Defendant’s subcontractor’s employees classified them to conduct a performance test on other fish that the Defendant’s subcontractor’s employees completed the performance test, and during that process, the Defendant’s employees designated and replaced the performance testing machine to be used during the performance test period and notified all relevant persons through microphones, and provided job training to new employees. After the instant lawsuit, the Defendant notified the cooperation company’s on-site agent of the aforementioned matters without using microphones. However, the Defendant’s factory divided the aforementioned matters into PCR screening method 21) and LT screening method 22, but only only only one cooperation company’s on-site agent was the Defendant’s employee. Meanwhile, by October 209, the Defendant had the Gwangju factory take charge of the pre-inspection work of the Gwangju factory.

(l) During the packing process, the Defendant’s partner company’s employees received the work quantity and transported the packaging machine with the packaging machine and then packed the packaging machine using the packaging machine. During that process, the Defendant employees determined and notified the type, quantity, and applicable packing method of the packaging on the day, in addition to the direct packing operation with the help of the subcontractor’s employees prior to the above authentic incident, the Defendant’s employees determined and notified the type, quantity, and applicable packing method of the packaging on the same day. However, after the above authentic incident, the Defendant’

[Grounds for Recognition] The facts and images of Gap's 2 through 72, 74 through 76, 79 through 84, 89, 90, 92 through 116, 118 through 120, 122 through 134, 135, 137 through 140, 145, 148, 149, 150, 186 through 228, 186 through 228, 186 through 37, 39 (including each number), witness of the first instance court, DK, U, DL, DM, DN, DP, DP, R, M, X, Q, testimony of the first instance court, results of verification on the site, results of fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance, results of fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance, results of fact-finding of the whole court of first instance, results of fact-finding of the trial of the court of first instance.

B. Whether it constitutes an implied employment contract relationship

1) If an employee employed by the employer of a third party and employed by the employer of a third party to be an employee of a third party, the employer of a third party is merely a formality and nominal existence, such as a person who can be deemed to be identical to the labor agency of a third party by lacking identity or independence as the employer, and in fact, the relevant employee is in a subordinate relationship with the third party, and the person who actually pays wages is a third party, and the party who provided labor is also a third party, and thus, an implied labor contract is established between the relevant employee and the third party (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4367, Jul. 22, 2010).

2) Therefore, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s subcontractor was established by a person having a special relationship with the Defendant, such as the retired employee of the Defendant Company; (b) the contract was concluded at the time of the conclusion of the contract with the Defendant; (c) the Defendant’s subcontractor immediately closed the contract; (d) there was only one representative other than the Plaintiffs, and (e) the Defendant’s subcontractor did not have any other employees; and (e) some representative of the Defendant’s subcontractor did not have any particular material facilities if the contract was excluded from office work; and (e) some of the representatives of the Defendant’s subcontractor did not submit the proposal at the time of the Defendant’s participation in the recruitment announcement for concluding the contract; and (e) the Defendant exercised considerable influence in the process of the establishment, operation, and closure of the contract; and (e) took considerable command and orders by participating in the work of the employees belonging to the subcontractor; and (e) the Defendant directly paid the Plaintiffs’ labor relations between the Defendant and the subcontractor.

3) However, on the other hand, the following circumstances revealed by the facts and the purport of the entire arguments as seen earlier, namely, the Defendant’s subcontractor established a company separate from the Defendant and operated as an independent project undertaker, and completed business registration, and paid insurance premiums under the name of the subcontractor or under the name of the subcontractor. The Defendant’s subcontractor prepared an independent rules of employment, employs workers on the basis of them, places them at work sites, and exercises a right to manage their work hours, such as early retirement, absence from work, leave, etc., and exercises a right to manage work hours, as prescribed by the prescribed labor contract or rules of employment. The Defendant’s subcontractor paid the employees basic pay, holiday allowances, night allowances, night allowances, early attendance and remaining work hours, production promotion allowances, etc., withholding taxes, health insurance premiums, medical care premiums, national pension, employment insurance premiums, etc., but it is difficult for the Defendant’s subcontractor to deny the formal validity of contract contracts, drug itself, etc., the Defendant’s subcontractor cannot request the Defendant’s employees to use safety education to the extent that it was impossible for the Defendant’s employees to perform their work.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, it cannot be said that the labor contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant subcontractor is formal or implied between the plaintiffs and the defendant.In addition, it cannot be said that the labor contract constitutes a temporary placement of workers.

1) In a case where the Plaintiff employer requires a certain employee to perform the work for a third party, whether the legal relation is a temporary placement of workers subject to the Dispatch Act does not go against the name or form of a contract attached by the relevant party, but rather, whether the third party directly or indirectly gives a binding order to perform the work itself, such as giving a binding order to the relevant employee, directly or indirectly, or whether the relevant employee is actually incorporated into a third party’s business, such as the formation of a group of work with a third party employees belonging to the relevant third party and the direct joint work, etc.; whether the Plaintiff employer independently exercises the power to determine the number of workers to be invested in the work or the number of workers, education and training, work and training, rest time, leave, inspection of work attitude, etc.; whether the purpose of the contract is clearly determined by the specific scope of the work performed by the relevant employee is distinct from the work performed by the third party; whether such work is specialized and technical; and whether the Plaintiff employee has an independent company organization or facility necessary to achieve the purpose of the contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da77.

2) Therefore, as to whether the Defendant directly or indirectly directed and ordered workers belonging to the Defendant’s collaborative company to conduct their work, the following circumstances, namely, the employees belonging to the Defendant’s collaborative company, by attending the Defendant’s factory in line with the Defendant’s working hours, are relatively simple and repetitive. The Defendant, who prepared detailed work outlines, work progress guidelines, work process guidelines, management guidelines, and safety management guidelines, and attached them to the collaborative company or notified the employees of the specific work volume on the same day. Thus, it is difficult to view that the employees of the collaborative company could not arbitrarily violate or change the employees’ work order, and thus, the employees of the collaborative company did not directly or indirectly change the employees’ right to direct or order to direct work at the work site (the employees of the collaborative company’s work site to which the employees of the collaborative company did not work at the same time and did not appear to have been subject to the Defendant’s order to direct or change the employees’ work site, and thus, it is difficult to view that the employees of the collaborative company did not directly or indirectly change the employees’ right to direct or control the work site.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above defendant's work order was given with the scope and contents of the contract, but in light of its contents and frequency, it is reasonable to see that it was involved in specific performance of duties rather than in designating the scope of duties.

3) Next, as to whether workers belonging to the defendant's collaborative company were actually incorporated into the defendant's business or not, the following circumstances are revealed by the facts and the purport of the whole arguments. The workers of the defendant's collaborative company, like the defendant's employees, have been engaged in various work standards, safety standards, and facility management standards presented by the defendant using materials and working tools provided by the defendant during the working hours of the defendant's employees. The workers of the defendant's collaborative company participated in one of the series of manufacturing processes or one of the manufacturing processes. The workers of the defendant's collaborative company are in combination with the defendant's employees, and it can be deemed that the work performed by the defendant's collaborative company was performed by the defendant's employees or conducted by shift with the defendant's employees. Since the work performed by the defendant's collaborative company, it can be deemed that the defendant's collaborative company was actually performed by the defendant's employees, it can be deemed that the defendant's employees were actually performed by the defendant's employees, and it can be seen that the defendant's employees' cooperation company's work was not performed by the defendant's employees.

4) In addition, according to the above facts, whether the Defendant’s collaborative company independently exercises the right to decide on the selection of workers, number of workers, recess hours, inspection of work attitude, etc., the Defendant’s collaborative company appears to prepare separate rules of employment, prepare human resources for the contract work, permit their application for leave, etc., and verify the work details. However, the following circumstances, such as the evidence prior to the Defendant’s collaborative company’s commencement of work and the statement of evidence No. 155, can be seen as having no actual exercise of the right to assign work from the Defendant’s collaborative company. The Defendant appears to have exercised considerable discretion in the process of the Defendant’s collaborative company’s selection. In light of the fact that the Defendant’s collaborative company offered certain physical facilities, such as offices, etc. in the process of its operation, welfare expenses incurred in school expenses, total operating expenses incurred in purchasing work clothes, etc., as well as expenses incurred in the contract, and it is difficult for the Defendant to find out the work status of the employee to be paid by the new collaborative company and its change of work volume.

5) In addition, as to whether the work entrusted by the employees of the defendant's subcontractor is distinct from the work performed by the defendant's employees and the work performed for the purpose of completing an independent work due to expertise and technical nature of such work, it is not equivalent to the work performed by the defendant's employees in advance, or the work performed by the employees of the defendant's subcontractor in the whole purport of the arguments. In other words, the work performed by the defendant's subcontractor is merely the work performed by the defendant's employees in the same manner as the work performed by the defendant's employees in other factories, and it does not require special expertise and technological nature as a relatively simple and repetitive work. The purpose of the contract for the defendant's subcontractor is to be "the work performed and completed independently because it is specified as part of the work conducted in detail as the work performed by the defendant's partner," and it seems to be for the purpose of providing "a simple work necessary for the work performed independently after the contract is not required by the defendant's subcontractor, and even after the contract is claimed for damages from the defendant's contractor after the above change in the work quantity.

In light of the circumstances that can be seen as not only as calculated based on the above, it is difficult to recognize that the work assigned to the employee of the Defendant’s subcontractor is aimed at completing an independent work. The fact that the work performed by the employee of the Defendant’s subcontractor is distinct from the work performed by the employee of the Defendant, or that the standard for calculating the contract for partial contract expenses has been changed to the work volume is difficult.

6) Finally, as to whether the Defendant’s collaborative company has an independent corporate organization or facility necessary to achieve the purpose of the contract, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s collaborative company has an independent corporate organization or facility necessary to achieve the purpose of the contract, in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s collaborative company was composed of many workers without any particular human resources and material facilities; and (b) the Defendant’s collaborative company is not equipped with special expertise; (c) the Defendant’s collaborative company is considerably affected by the Defendant in the process of its establishment and closure; and (d) it appears that the Defendant’s collaborative company was established for the contract with the Defendant; and (e) most of the Defendant’s collaborative company’s representatives are those related to the Defendant, including the Defendant’s retired from office.

7) Sub-committee

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiffs, who are the employees of the Defendant’s collaborative company, were employed by the Defendant’s collaborative company and dispatched to the Defendant’s work site, and received direct supervision from the Defendant.

(d) Agenda of employment and whether to perform the duty of employment;

Article 6(3) main text of the former Dispatch Act provides that “If a user company continues to use a temporary agency worker more than two years, it shall be deemed that the temporary agency worker is employed from the day following the expiry of the two-year period.” Such direct employment deeming provision does not apply only to lawful temporary agency workers (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du22320, Sept. 18, 2008).

Meanwhile, Article 6-2 (1) 3 of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 8076 of Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter referred to as the "Temporary Agency Act") provides that "where a user company continues to use temporary agency workers for more than two years, the relevant temporary agency workers shall be directly employed," and Article 6-2 (1) 1 and (3) of the Addenda at the time shall enter into force on July 1, 2007. As regards temporary agency workers to whom the provisions of Article 6 (3) of the former Act apply at the time of the enforcement of this Act, the former provisions shall apply after the enforcement of this Act

The direct employment deeming provision applies to the case of the temporary placement of workers, which is lawful, although the direct production process of the manufacturing business, such as the plaintiffs' taking charge, is excluded from the worker dispatch target business pursuant to the former Dispatch Act and Article 5 of the Dispatch Act. The plaintiffs mentioned in [Attachment 1] through 31, 36 through 41, 58 through 61, 69 through 73, and 77 through 84 are currently employed as a worker for more than two years by the defendant at the time of the enforcement of the Dispatch Act. As such, since the plaintiffs mentioned in [Attachment 1] had already been employed as a worker for more than two years by the defendant at the time of the enforcement of the Dispatch Act, each employment is deemed to have been made at the time when two years have elapsed since the date of entry in the entry in the entry column of the same list

In addition, the plaintiffs mentioned above Nos. 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, and 85 through 87 of the same list are continuously used as temporary agency workers for more than two years by the defendant. Since the defendant bears the obligation to directly employ them at the expiration of two years from the date stated in the same list's entry date, the defendant is obligated to express his/her intention to employ them.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the direct employment obligation under the Dispatch Act is merely an administrative regulation and does not bring about a judicial obligation. However, in light of the language of the above provision, legislative purpose and amendment process of the Dispatch Act, the above argument cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' conjunctive claims as stated in [Attachment 1, List Nos. 1 through 31, 36 through 41, 58 through 63, 69 through 73, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, 85 through 87 are accepted for all of the reasons, and the plaintiffs' primary claims as stated in the above list Nos. 32 through 35, 42 through 57, 62 through 68, 74 through 76, 85 through 87 are dismissed for all of these reasons. The plaintiffs' primary claims as stated in the above list Nos. 1 through 31, 36 through 41, 68 through 61, 69 through 73, 679 through 774, 75 through 875, and the plaintiffs' primary claims as stated in the above list No. 1, 362 through 775, 375 through 867.

Judges Kim Gon

Judges Seo-young

(ii)a process that, between the rollers of a pair of lushes, passes through heading code or heading code, in the course of rubber in the course of rubbering, not resolving only simple rubber.

It is the process of inserting each code between rubber floors for the same role as the underwater or the fixed form.

(iii) rubber manufactured solely for the interdrid month, the part of which comes into contact with the surface of twits and the part of the side part of the twits;

the processing process is a process that processes the product in a certain size in accordance with the product standards.

4) At certain angles of the cut code paper manufactured through the voltage process, rubber cocopied code, cut to certain width and angles, and cut to certain angles.

It is a process that comes into a single anti-doping code in line with others.

5) Bads are steel lines with the parts that play a role in reducing the end portion of the typ code and that are installed in the forest and that are golded with the joints of Doz and tin.

It is a process to make a dynasium in its original form after clafing rubber in accordance with the other specifications.

6) It is a process to assemble each part of tyress made in the refining process and semi-finished process. It is through this process, in the original form of tyress.

was made.

7) It is a process that makes finished products different from other finished products by cutting a certain heat and pressure on green slocks made through a sex process.

8) A process is a process that goes through a concentrated test, a test of competence, and a test of performance and concurrently for other fish produced through a process of Category A.

9) Rubbing operations shall take place in S-Calender principal body of rubber forming code layers inside tyresing operations which do not cover s-Calendlers.

The studio process is a work arranging ethyl which is induced to the main body of the S-Calender.

10) In order to enhance the durability of tyres, ethyl code is used to put steel wires inside tyres into tyres.

11) When establishing the rubber originals through the foundation process, there are cases where it is necessary to attach the rubber machinery belts at the end of both rubber originals, which means that it is necessary to attach the rubber machinery belts.

(c)

12) It is a simple foundation of rubber sources in a width of 40M so that they can be used in the undiversing process.

13) It is a transport instrument that is called CLT and that is made to ensure the transport of rubber logs, bags, etc. by hand.

14) means the ceiling inside tyresponding along with rubber.

15) Sheet balance of rubber sources which can not be used after the foundation work.

16) In the process of the foundation process, the rubber sources remaining after the foundation work are arranged to be used in the foundation again.

17) It is the work of allocating rubber sources to each foundation machinery so that they can be used within the working time.

18) Rubber part of typhere in contact with the surface of other typ.

19) Machines extract rubber in the original form by mixing it with rubber.

20) Among other terms, the words referring to the rubber sculptures constituting the inside.

21) The PCR means a passenger car freeboard, and sells a place where inspection is conducted by classifying passenger cars freeboards.

22) LT means a place that carries out inspections by classifying light truck liftss, which means a place where inspections are carried out by classifying light truck liftss.