The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below ordered the non-party to the construction of the non-party 1's main factory in Korea after the defendant company supplied the non-party 1's main factory in Korea and gave the non-party a subcontract to the non-party. Accordingly, since the plaintiff 1 was not an employee of the defendant company and the non-party was an employee employed to execute the sewage supply work, the plaintiff 1's claim based on the premise that the non-party 1 was an employee of the defendant company is unfair and dismissed without determining the remainder. In light of the records, the court below's comprehensive review of all the evidence that the judgment was adopted by the court below can be sufficiently pride in the fact-finding at the time of the original decision. As long as this is recognized, the defendant company as the contractor can reject the plaintiffs' claim without any need to determine whether the plaintiffs' claim was groundless because it is natural to determine whether the plaintiff 1 had a right to know or not, and there is no violation of the Supreme Court's precedent, and there is no objection to the judgment of the non-party 1's main judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)