2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. Status of parties

The defendant is a company that produces 4D56 engines for motor vehicles in factories (hereinafter referred to as "one factory") located in Pyeongtaek-si ( Address 1 omitted), Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter referred to as "two factories") established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling various kinds of public machinery and metal processing machinery, and supplies completion motor vehicles to the complete motor vehicle company (on-site motor vehicle delivery corporation, modern motor vehicle delivery corporation, Arabic motor vehicle, and East-si).

The plaintiffs are workers employed by in-house collaborative companies that have entered into a contract with the defendant and work in-house 1 and 2, and the detailed details of the affiliated companies and factories are as shown in the "specific changes in affiliated companies" and the "factory" column in attached Table 2 among the employment records by plaintiffs 2.

B. A contract between the defendant and the intra-company subcontractor

1) The Defendant entered into a basic contract of subcontract transactions and individual unit price contracts of subcontract transactions on the assembly and production of motor vehicle engines with subcontractors (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant contract”). The basic contract of subcontract transactions does not include specific contract details, and the individual unit price contracts of subcontract transactions include “carf engine assembly” and “4D56 engine assembly” as the contract contents (hereinafter referred to as “in-house subcontractor”, and the rest of the Defendant’s collaborative company does not distinguish between the intra-company subcontractor and the external subcontractor, but only “the Defendant collaborative company”).

① 1 Factory Engine assembly: A personal workplace in the name of Nonparty 1, ○○○○, ○○○○, a new ore-made company (the representative Nonparty 1, hereinafter collectively referred to as “new ore-made”), a personal workplace in the name of Nonparty 2, a △△△△△△△, a corporation converted into a corporation by △△△△△△, and a new or night shift work in the name of Nonparty 2, a new or night shift.

③ 2 Factory Engine assembly: Daesung (Representative Nonparty 3), from April 1, 2014 to April 31, 2014, from Non-Party 4’s personal business establishment in the non-party 4’s personal business establishment, △ TEC, and PacificH converted into a limited liability company (the representative Non-party 4; hereinafter collectively referred to as “ETex”).

2) The Defendant concluded a subcontract price determination agreement, a private-class machinery management agreement, and a machinery and equipment lease agreement with the intra-company subcontractor, respectively, by concluding an agreement incidental to the individual unit price contract of subcontract transactions.

① An agreement on the determination of the unit cost of subcontract is an agreement on the unit price of business performed by an in-house subcontractor pursuant to the instant contract. ② The agreement on the management of private-class machinery and equipment provides parts necessary for the engine assembly to an in-house subcontractor without compensation, but an in-house subcontractor shall manage such parts in good faith. ③ The agreement on the management of machinery and equipment provides that the Defendant leases the parts to an in-house subcontractor without compensation for engine assembly.

The defendant entered into a lease agreement with in-house collaborative companies to lease part of the factories within 1 and 2 for the purpose of in-house collaborative offices, separate from the contract of this case.

3) The Defendant, internally, prepared standards for calculating the unit price of the instant contract, and the details thereof are as follows.

(1) The production quantity per hour of a facility for producing 1 or 2 factories engine engines (UPH, Unit Perour) and the expected number and expected operation rate necessary for the operation of facilities shall be calculated.

(2) The UPH (i.e., equipment UPH x the expected rate of operation) shall be calculated based on the expected rate of operation.

(3) The estimated time required for the production of a product under the UPH shall be calculated by 60 percent ± UPH.

(4) The standard time of standard per person (standard M/H, expected number of persons x T/T ± 60 minutes) input for the production of unit products based on T/T shall be calculated.

(5) The unit price for a contract shall be calculated by multiplying the standard M/H by the contract deposit rate.

The above criteria for calculation include the detailed calculation details as a decision after consultation with the contracting company, but the contract price under the contract concluded between the defendant and the intra-company subcontractor is consistent with the contract price under the above criteria for calculation.

(c) 1,2 plant engine production processes;

(i)the opening;

A) The automobile engines are manufactured through a assembly process that combines detailed parts of the engines into the status where assembly is possible by cutting and processing the main components of engines by using precision machines (hereinafter referred to as “processing Engines”) and the main components of the processed engines through a assembly process that combines the main components of the processed engines with specific production specifications.

B) The completed automobile is supplied and manufactured by the so-called “scalon method.” The direct heating method means that, if an individual consumer orders the completed automobile company to order the specific specifications of the completed automobile to be purchased, the completed automobile company provides the parts supply company like the Defendant with information on the production order, date, time, and quantity of the order production, and the parts supply company produces specific specifications of the specifications necessary in accordance with the original order production information and supplies them to the completed automobile company in a timely manner.

The defendant supplied 13 times a day for each order of order the engines, as required by the complete vehicle company for timely delivery according to the direct heat method.

(ii) concrete production processes for one factory;

(a)the opening;

1 factory processing workers and assembly workers are classified by spatially, and ① in case of processing workers whose most process is conducted by automated costs, workers belonging to the defendant work in addition to Plaintiff 18 and Plaintiff 24, and ② in case of assembly workers, workers belonging to in-house subcontractor work.

The main components of engines supplied by an external company are processed to produce a processing completion engine by processing the main components of engines supplied by an external company, and from a prefabricated, a car-frequency engine into a new-learning vehicle is produced through assembly processes that assemble parts resulting from specific specifications with a processing completion engine. A processing completion engine produced by a processing licensee is more than 250,000 annually, and a prefabricated produces a 320,000-year engine supplied by a processing licensee as well as a processing licensee and a processing completion engine produced by an external company.

The processing completion engine produced by a processing licensee and a foreign company is stored at the storage yard for a certain period, which is being transported in the future by the Defendant collaborative company responsible for logistics in the parts of the robot equipment. The robot equipment shall put the necessary processing completion engine into the assembly unit in accordance with the order of the order of the order. On the date the assembly process has been completed in the assembly unit, the Defendant collaborative company responsible for logistics supplies the completed assembly engine to the complete vehicle company.

B) Specific types of business performance for employees belonging to one factory subcontractor.

(1) Plaintiffs 18 and 24

Plaintiff 18 and Plaintiff 24, together with the employees belonging to the Defendant, shall inspect the major components of engines (fluor humd, flake, Shastre block), which have been completed, in six months each, and shall report on the confirmation of the defectiveness to the employees belonging to the Defendant. Upon receipt of the above report, the Defendant’s employees shall determine whether to send the defective products to the correction site, and as is, put them into the prefabricated.

(2) Employees belonging to the rest of one factory collaborative company

The employees belonging to the rest of the factory in-house collaborative companies have engaged in the assembly of car-frequency engines at assemblys, and the specific types of business performance are as follows:

① On the basis of the order production information, etc. established by the complete automobile company, the Defendant shall establish a monthly program for the production of orders and a weekly program, prepare orders production information for collaborative companies, including in-house collaborative companies, and share it with the subcontractor via A-ONE website. When the Defendant enters the order production information into the one factory production management system, the specific order production information for the relevant engine appears in the one factory production monitoring, and the Defendant immediately corrected the order production information when the content is changed due to a change, etc. in the order production information of the complete automobile company.

Upon ordering engines to the Defendant Company, the complete automobile company provided an engine drawing stating matters to be considered during engine production. The Defendant produced the assembly QC process table containing almost the main contents indicated in the above drawing, and the working standards and priority control table based on the above assembly QC process table were provided to employees belonging to the in-house subcontractor.

(2) The employees belonging to one factory in-house collaborative company shall suspend the assembly of engines located in the relevant work process and have reached an engine in assembly process, after referring to work process monitors indicating the information on the parts to be combined with the relevant engine at the time of the suspension of the assembly work, and perform the assembly work in accordance with the work standard, priority control table, etc., and, at the time of the completion of the assembly work, move back to the next process by operating the consortium at the time of the completion of the operation (the so-called “Stop & Go”).

③ The Defendant’s employees, managers of in-house collaborative companies, etc. participated in the assembly process to analyze and announce the defective conditions and causes confirmed during the assembly process, and the Defendant’s employees entered the results of the daily quality conference (in-house occurrence process, the causes of defective quality, the details of defective defects, the measures taken, and the measures) into the “one-factory assembly status” in the “one-factory assembly status.” The managers of in-house collaborative companies ordered employees under their command to take defective measures in accordance with the above Defendant’s employees’ description.

④ The Defendant, among his employees, was in the position of prosecutor(s). The prosecutor measured whether employees belonging to the in-house subcontractor concluded a V with the strength determined by the Defendant, and performed a role in determining how to deal with the defective parts when the defective parts were reported during the assembly process.

(iii) concrete production processes for 2 factories;

(a)the opening;

2 In a factory, 4D56 engines shall be produced from an outer company to be supplied with a processing completion engine from an outer company and into an assembly in accordance with specific specifications through assembly processes.

The complete engines produced by the off-site company are placed at the storage yard for a certain period, and they are prepared to be transported to the factory workplace and assembled by the Defendant subcontractor in charge of logistics. When the assembly process has been completed in the assembly yard, the complete assembly engine shall be supplied to the complete vehicle company by the Defendant subcontractor in charge of logistics.

B) Specific types of business performance for employees belonging to in-house collaborative companies

Workers belonging to the 2-company subcontractor in a factory have been in charge of assembling 4D56 engines from prefabricateds, and specific types of business performance are as follows:

① If the Defendant, like a factory, prepares order-produced information, and shares it with a A-ONE subcontractor via a A-ONE site, workers of an intra-company subcontractor enter information on order production into a computer and appear in the production information monitoring. An intra-company subcontractor shall output an engine assembly specifications stating specific engine specifications based on the order-produced information and input it with a processing completion engine in the first process as an assembly.

(2) Workers belonging to an in-house subcontractor shall suspend the operation of an engine at the time of the arrival of an engine in assembly at a position in the part of the relevant work progress, and at that time, determine the parts to be combined by comparing the engine assembly specifications and the parts table corresponding to engine supplies with the parts table corresponding to the engine supplies at that time, perform the assembly business in accordance with the work standards and the mid-term control table, and move the parts to the following fairness by operating the consortium at the time of completion of the work.

③ The Defendant’s business trip office is located within two factories. The said employees conducted sampling inspections for one product at least twice a day before the engine was completely assembled, and entered the result in QC quality inspection in QC quality.

(d) Claim, etc. for production amount, contract cost, etc. of intra-corporate collaborative companies;

1) From January 26, 2015 to February 25, 2015, 2015, a prefabricated operated for 222 hours a day, excluding nine (9) days of non-working day during the period from January 26, 2015 to February 25, 2015, and (2) the engine output for 20 days remaining excluding (2) two (2) days a week is set at the minimum of 663 to 675.

Titex operated prefabricated every 10 hours a day for 22 days except nine days of holidays during the above period, and the engine output for the remainder of 20 days other than the two days a week is set from the lowest 661 to the highest 684 days.

IMT operated prefabricated every 8 hours a day for 21 days except 10 days off a day during the said period, and the engine output for the remainder of 20 days excluding the day off a week 4) excluding the other day is set from the lowest 192 to the highest 198.

2) In addition to the main engine assembly costs, an intra-company subcontractor filed a claim against the Defendant for the flag of processing, outsourcing inspection, internal testing, improvement team, CKR dispatch, quality dispatch, air transport, air transport, air transport, personnel expenses ( human resources expenses). The early stage of the air transport support is the amount calculated by multiplying the contract deposit rate as seen above by the number of inputs and working hours for the given air transport in question, and the air transport support work is included in the contents of quality cleaning, the materials storage, the materials storage, the intensive cleaning, the materials storage, the intensive cleaning and quality cleaning, the materials storage, the 120 process ray support and quality cleaning, the materials storage, the floor cleaning and the quality cleaning of the materials storage, the safety education (hereinafter above new luminous area), ② the cleaning and cleaning exchange, the equipment cleaning, the equipment cleaning, the installation cleaning, the cleaning, the equipment cleaning, the installation inspection, the shipping inspection, the cargo washing, the cleaning and cleaning of the work, the cleaning engine work, the removal of the GEM 3 model or more of the GE.

(e) Personnel management of inside-house subcontractors;

An in-house subcontractor employed new workers, including the Plaintiffs, in the name of the relevant company, and employed the relevant workers, and set up rules of employment separate from the Defendant, and accordingly exercised personnel rights and disciplinary rights to the workers. Accordingly, the workers also could be exempted from the work after they submitted leavees, early retirements, etc. to obtain the approval of the affiliated company.

A company in-house subcontractor received contract amount from the defendant, and paid wages to its employees directly, and in the process, withheld and paid wage and salary tax, year-end tax settlement, etc. on its own, and purchased national pension, employment insurance, health insurance, and industrial accident insurance in the name of the representative of the company. In addition, in-house subcontractor paid business income tax according to the execution of the contract in this case after completing business registration at the competent tax office

(f) Relevant statutes

1) The process and main contents of the enactment of the former Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 8076 of Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter “Re-agency Workers Act”)

A) Article 9 of the Labor Standards Act stipulates, in principle, a direct and single-area employment relationship formed between a specific employer and an employee is to be permitted only in exceptional cases where the act of intervention in employment of a specific employee for the purpose of profit-making is determined by the Act, regardless of the formation or continued existence of a labor relationship (Article 9). This is to prevent the occurrence of a part of the worker’s remuneration to be paid to an employee from being leaked to a third party by taking advantage of employment arrangement, etc. In other words, it can be understood as a provision established in the purport of protecting an employee from unfair interim exploitation

B) In the past Employment Security Act, one of the representative types of involvement in another person’s employment (domestic labor supply business), has maintained a strict permission system that recognizes only a trade union as a business entity (Article 33(1) and (3) and Article 33(2)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the Employment Security Act), but as a result, the need for flexible human resource management by a business entity to increase employment flexibility corresponding to changes in the economic environment has been raised, the Act on the Protection of Temporary Agency Workers was enacted on February 198 after negotiations and discussions between labor, management, and administration (the temporary work agency was excluded from the scope of labor supply business under the Employment Security Act).

C) The Act on the Protection of Temporary Agency Workers aims to facilitate the supply of and demand for human resources by allowing companies permitted for temporary work agency business to engage in work for others employed by them, while adopting the so-called "stib" method that only the allowed part of the work is legalized and excluded from the direct production process of manufacturing business). In addition, the Act intended to restrain the commercialization and the long-termization of temporary agency workers by taking measures to prevent abuse of temporary agency business by preventing illegal dispatch in violation of the period, business permission requirements, etc.

D) The main contents are as follows:

Article 1 (Purpose) of the Table included in the main text of this Act is to contribute to the stability of the employment of temporary agency workers and the promotion of their welfare and the smooth supply and demand of human resources by ensuring the proper operation of temporary agency business and establishing standards for working conditions, etc. of temporary agency workers. The definitions of the terms used in this Act are as follows:

2) The amendment of the former Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 8076, Dec. 21, 2006; amended by Act No. 11279, Feb. 1, 2012; hereinafter “former Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers”) and its main contents

The term "employment deeming provision" under the Act on the Protection of Temporary Agency Workers was changed to the term "employment obligation" provision. The main contents are as follows.

(3) In cases of temporary agency workers who are employed in the same kind of temporary agency workers pursuant to Article 5 (1) 2, the temporary agency workers shall be subject to the business prescribed by Presidential Decree, taking into account their expertise, technology, experience, the nature of their business, etc.: < Amended by Act No. 8174, Dec. 21, 2006>

3) The amendment of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 11279, Feb. 1, 2012; effective August 2, 2012; hereinafter “current Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers”) and the main contents thereof

In the case of illegal temporary placement, the provision of employment obligation under the former Act on the Protection of Temporary Agency Workers, which imposes a direct employment obligation on the user company, was modified to impose the user company the direct employment obligation on the user company regardless of the period of use. The main contents are as follows.

(3) Where a user company directly employs a temporary agency worker in violation of Article 5(2) of the Act on February 1, 2012, when it does not fall under the work subject to temporary agency work under Article 5(1) (excluding where the temporary agency work is conducted pursuant to Article 5(2)); 2. Where it uses a temporary agency worker in violation of Article 5(3); 4. Where it uses a temporary agency worker continuously for more than two years in violation of Article 6(2); 5. Where it directly uses the temporary agency worker in violation of Article 6(4); 4. Where it is provided with the temporary agency work in violation of Article 7(3), the provision of paragraph (1) shall not apply.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's 1 through 13, 16 through 18, 20 through 23, 25 through 59, 69, 102 through 106, Eul's statements, 1 through 5, 7 through 17, 20 through 36 (including each number in case of additional numbers), the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the parties' arguments

1) The plaintiffs

The contract of this case concluded between the defendant and the in-house subcontractor constitutes a worker dispatch contract in substance. Since the defendant used the plaintiffs who are dispatched workers for more than two years or the plaintiffs who are dispatched workers in work not falling under the worker dispatch work, as long as the defendant used the plaintiffs who worked for more than two years prior to the enforcement of the former Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, when two years have elapsed pursuant to subparagraph 3 of Article 6-2 of the former Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, the plaintiffs who worked less than two years as of the enforcement date of the former Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, and as to the plaintiffs who were employed after the enforcement of the current Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers, a direct employment obligation for the plaintiffs was generated on the date of their employment as of the date

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to express his intention of employment to the plaintiffs.

2) Defendant

The defendant has given a contract to an in-house subcontractor by specifying a part of the engine manufacturing process, and the plaintiffs, as workers belonging to an in-house subcontractor, performed their contracted duties under the direction and supervision of the in-house subcontractor who is not the defendant, and therefore, the worker dispatch relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant is not established.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are without merit.

3. Determination

A. Legal principles on temporary placement of workers

According to Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the Act on the Protection of Temporary Agency Workers, "temporary placement of workers" means that a temporary work agency employs a worker and has him/her engage in work for a user company under the direction and order of the user company in accordance with the terms of the temporary placement contract while maintaining the employment relationship.

In a case where the plaintiff's employer requires a certain worker to perform the work for a third party, whether the legal relation constitutes a temporary placement of workers subject to the Act on the Protection of Dispatched Workers does not go against the name or form of a contract attached by the party, but rather, whether the third party directly or indirectly gives binding instructions to the relevant worker, such as conducting the work itself, and whether the relevant worker is actually incorporated into the third party's business, such as conducting a joint work, by consisting of one working group of the workers belonging to the third party, or whether the relevant worker is actually incorporated into the third party's business (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da1636, Feb. 26, 2015). Whether the contract purpose is to independently exercise the authority to determine the number of workers to be placed in the work or the number, education and training, working hours, leave, inspection of work attitude, etc. of the relevant worker, the specific scope of the contract purpose is determined separately from the work performed by the third party's employee.

In addition, the lower court's precedents on the specific criteria have been generally addressed as follows (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 2009Na117975, Oct. 1, 2010; Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na56977, Nov. 12, 2010).

1) Purpose of a contract: Whether there exists an agreement on the completion of a specific day (whether the purpose of the contract is clear, whether the time limit for the purpose of the contract is clearly prescribed), whether delivery and receipt is necessary after the completion of the day, whether a claim for payment can be made before the completion of the day (in the case of temporary placement, it is possible to claim payment according to the quantity of work hours according to the number of work hours regardless of the objective progress), whether the work is incomplete performance or defects in the result, if any, whether the liability for warranty is liable (in the case of temporary work agency, it is liable only when there is negligence on human resources organization or selection)

2) The process of performing duties: Whether the contractor directly directs and supervises workers on the job site and manages their labor (which shall be responsible for the supervision of attendance, leave and rest, management and supervision of attendance, education and training of workers), whether the contractor’s performance of duties is linked and subordinate to the process of performing duties of the contractor, i.e., whether the contractor’s performance of duties is a systematic distinction between the contractor’s performance of duties and the partial performance of duties with the directly operated employee, and whether the contractor provides labor on matters other than those subject to the contract.

(iii) Eligibility of parties to a contract: Whether the party has the ability to perform the work that becomes the subject matter of the contract (professional technical ability, high level of professional manpower, the possession of working clothes or other protective clothes, the supply of labor materials, the possession of independent business facilities), and whether the specialized area is possible as a specialized area;

B. Whether the temporary placement relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant was established

In full view of the facts as seen earlier and the overall purport of the evidence presented earlier, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiffs were dispatched to Defendant 1 and 2 factories after employed by the intra-company cooperation company and received direct command and order from the Defendant.

1) Purposes of the contract

A) According to the instant contract, in principle, in-house collaborative companies are engaged in engine assembly business, but employees belonging to in-house collaborative companies were engaged in processing business, shipment inspection, material inspection, external inspection, materials inspection, internal testing, oral inspection, improvement team, CDR dispatch, quality dispatch, facility cleaning, factory cleaning, etc. in addition to engine assembly business stipulated in the instant contract.

[This regard, the defendant asserts that the inspection work conducted by the in-house subcontractor's employees is included in the assembly work. However, in light of the fact that additional contract cost was received in addition to the contract price as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the inspection work is separate from the assembly work.

B) Since the Defendant is a corporation that engages in the business of producing and delivering engines, engine assembly falling under the main part is an essential and regular business related to the Defendant’s business. The instant contract between the Defendant and the intra-company subcontractor is for the Defendant’s essential and regular business.

C) It seems that there was no need for delivery or receipt separately between the Defendant and the intra-company subcontractor after the completion of the date of engine assembly.

D) In light of the calculation method of the Defendant’s contract unit price, the above contract unit price can be assessed to include at least the necessary number of employees and their input hours in the performance of the instant engine assembly business. In the performance of the instant engine assembly business, it is deemed impossible for an intra-company subcontractor to either perform duties under the instant contract or set up UPH differently from the Defendant’s anticipated, by inserting only the number of employees less than the estimated number of employees necessary for the Defendant in the performance of the instant engine assembly business. (In fact, it is not significantly different from the performance of duties performed by the intra-company subcontractor as seen earlier with the UPH (10 hours base of 10 hours, 4D56 engine engine 8 hours base of 190.4 hours base of 10 hours).

Therefore, in-house collaborative companies are practically closed to create independent profits according to their own effort and judgment in the course of performing the contract work only when the quantity and the unit price of contract are determined in advance according to the defendant's standard and receive the contract price calculated according to the standard. In this regard, it is difficult to find a difference between in-house collaborative companies and ordinary workers supply companies.

E) When an in-house subcontractor provided safety education to its employees, or employees belonging to an in-house subcontractor provided normal inspection, cleaning, etc. on engine production facilities, the Defendant considered it as public demand for assistance and paid the contract termination rate corresponding thereto at the contract cost. In the event that an in-house subcontractor employed a separate human resources other than his/her employees, the Defendant paid the human resources cost to them.

Considering the circumstances that the cost of ordinary inspection, cleaning, and separate employment with respect to safety education and engine equipment is the cost to be borne by the worker's formal employer or the in-house subcontractor who is the lessee of engine equipment, it would be possible to claim the payment of the cost according to the quantity of work hours according to the objective progress (Engine production), irrespective of the degree of progress (Engine production) between the defendant and the intra-company subcontractor, unlike general contract.

F) It seems that there were no cases where the Defendant and the intra-company subcontractor bear the warranty liability in the event of defective performance or defects in the result thereof.

2) Type of performance of duties

A) In accordance with the work standard or priority control table based on the assembly QC process table provided by the Defendant, the intra-company subcontractor’s employees determined parts and assembly methods to be put in the assembly process, and accordingly performed the relevant assembly activity. To the extent that the Defendant recognized the originator as the Defendant, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant directly and indirectly ordered the intra-company subcontractor’s employees to direct and indirect instructions.

(1) The work process monitoring and parts monitoring table are the grounds for determining which parts should be assembled according to specific specifications, and the work standard and priority control table are written in which the method of assembling the determined parts is stated, and considering that the employees belonging to the intra-company subcontractor did not have the discretion to assemble engines differently from the work standard and so on, they are bound to be viewed as a specific work instruction for the employees belonging to the intra-company subcontractor.

[A] The Defendant asserts that the work process monitoring and parts monitoring are not more meaningful than the specific order production information when considering the characteristics of the completed vehicle manufacturing and the order manufacturing method in accordance with the current general system. However, even if the Defendant directly employs workers and directly produces engines in the first and second factories, the nature of the work instruction cannot be denied solely on such circumstances in light of the circumstances that the Defendant would make specific work instruction using the work process monitoring and parts monitoring method.

(2) The work process monitoring and parts monitoring table are calculated from the original production information prepared by the Defendant, even if inside cooperative companies entered or output it, it is difficult to view it as a separate order that is distinguishable from the Defendant’s work instruction in quality.

(3) Although the work standard and priority control table are prepared by the title holder as the intra-company subcontractor, the actual preparing person seems to be the defendant in light of the following circumstances.

① Part of the work standards are written by both the author, the examiner, and the approved person as the employees of the engine production department of the defendant company, and the detailed details of addition and modification are written and the date and time of addition.

② Some of the working standards indicate “information of items of the management plan” (the Defendant asserts that the management plan was not distributed in the Defendant’s internal document on several occasions, so the part in which “information of items of the management plan” was written by the Defendant is bound to be deemed to be written by the Defendant.

(3) There is no indication in the originator or approved column in a part of the priority control chart.

④ The date of preparing the priority management table is before the intra-company subcontractor enters into the instant contract with the Defendant.

⑤ Some of the priority management table states, “this document may not be presumed or reproduced with the Defendant’s information assets without permission and may be subject to sanctions pursuant to our company regulations and relevant laws and regulations when violating this.” (In this regard, the Defendant asserts that the above phrase is merely printed by allowing intra-company subcontractor to output the priority management mark using the Defendant’s internal network because the intra-company subcontractor did not hold a printing machine. However, other priority management table only states that it is difficult to obtain the reasons why the above phrase is not printed, and even if so, such circumstance would be a circumstance to doubt the eligibility of the intra-company subcontractor’s contractual party).

B) The Defendant, through a daily quality meeting, delivered improvement measures to the managers of in-house collaborative companies, and the managers ordered the employees to do so, and the inspection ( QC) employed by the Defendant specifically inspected the employees’ performance of their duties and ordered the methods of disposal when defective. As seen above, the managers of in-house collaborative companies are only in the position of the director and the head of the Ban, and do not seem to have directed and supervised the employees under their control while performing work like general workers.

[A] The Defendant asserts that the above contents are merely cooperation with intra-company subcontractors or managerial supervision of a contractor, and did not reach specific instructions. However, in light of the eligibility of an intra-company subcontractor as a contracting party, it is difficult to view the daily quality conference as simple collaboration because the intra-company subcontractor did not have any substantial expertise to discuss defective performance improvement measures. If the Defendant’s inspection of the engine’s defectiveness in VV strength or engine assembly and orders the treatment of defective products, it is reasonable to deem that it is a specific instruction and order exceeding the mere administrative supervision.

C) The instant engine assembly process is operated by so-called Stop&O, unlike consortiums continuously operating. As such, the instant engine assembly process basically plays a role as a means of engine movement rather than as a means of controlling and managing the amount or speed of the engine assembly work.

However, since the engine assembly work actually determines daily work volume according to the production plan set by the Defendant, it is difficult for the intra-company subcontractor to arbitrarily adjust the work volume by disregarding the work volume. Furthermore, the engine assembly as a whole cannot be conducted by linking the entire engine production schedule planned by the Defendant, the operation of engine equipment, and UPH. In fact, the work hours, work hours, and rest hours of the employees of the Defendant and the intra-company subcontractor are the same as those of the workers belonging to the Defendant and the intra-company subcontractor, and the production does not go to the UPH established by the Defendant. Ultimately, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as a whole, linked the work of engine assembly conducted by the intra-company subcontractor to the Defendant’s business performance process, namely, engine assembly conducted by the Defendant by mediating the engine production facilities, UPH established by the Defendant, and the production management system (MES) managed by the Defendant.

(iii) qualifications of contracting parties;

A) The Defendant entered into a contract by a negotiated contract without selecting a company through an open competitive method, such as a bid, and most of the previous employees were succeeded to the employment of a new company even if an intra-company subcontractor is changed.

Therefore, the Defendant may be deemed to have considered the provision of labor to its employees, rather than their own technical skills and expertise, as more important factors in performing engine assembly work through the instant contract. Rather, it is reasonable to deem that the expertise and technical nature related to the instant engine assembly work is in the Defendant’s side that actually prepared specific work instruction, etc. The expertise of the intra-company subcontractor or its employees asserted by the Defendant refers to the labor’s work experience or higher arising from repeated performance of the same work for a long time regardless of the change in the affiliated company.

B) As seen earlier, the contract unit price is determined in proportion to the input of labor for a certain work, i.e., the standard M/H based on the operation UPH and the expected number of workers. As such, in-house collaborative companies are bound to input workers by each process based on the expected number of employees established by the Defendant. Therefore, in-house collaborative companies, the substantive right to assign actual work regarding the total number of employees required for the engine assembly process or the number of employees invested by each assembly process is the Defendant (i.e., the Defendant was anticipated to reduce the necessary number of employees by one reduction of the necessary number of equipment following the 1 factory assembly process around December 2014, and thus, to reduce the number of employees by 30 million won per year). In-house collaborative companies are limited to the formal right to assign work, considering that there is no special discrimination as a simple repeated work that does not have expertise by process.

Likewise, in-house collaborative companies directly engaged in the management of work, such as the employment and use of leave by their employees, including the plaintiffs. However, considering that the company succeeds most of the employment of workers employed by the previous companies, it may be said that the employer’s right to employ workers reserved in the relevant company has no substantial significance. Furthermore, in-house collaborative companies pay attention to the fact that, on the other hand, the management of the workers employed by the company engaged in the engine assembly business of this case has a great aspect for promoting the defendant’s fair management or the efficiency of business instruction, it would be possible to conduct an evaluation on behalf of the part of specific labor management in the defendant’s territory. Accordingly, it is difficult to recognize that the intra-company collaborative company exercised its own right to command and order on the sole basis of the fact that the labor management was conducted.

C) Considering the purport that Article 669 of the Civil Act provides that “the contractor may provide materials to the contractor regarding the work,” it is difficult to view the ownership of production facilities, materials, etc. as an element to determine whether a contract is concluded or not.

However, according to the relationship between a contractor and a contractor, the ownership relationship of production facilities, etc. may also be an element to deny the identity of a contractor in the course of performing the work, or to strongly estimate the use relationship between a contractor and his/her employees. However, in-house subcontractor provided all factories, machinery, equipment, and fixtures necessary for the assembly of engine in this case to its employees free of charge from the Defendant, and this is the factor to weaken the independent nature of an in-house subcontractor.

(c) Sub-committee - Occurrence of employment obligation

Therefore, pursuant to Article 6-2 (1) of the former Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers, the Defendant bears the duty of employment of Plaintiffs 10, 13, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 30, 54, 61, 67, 68, 72, 77, 77, 77, 78, 78, 79, and 83 on the current date of employment of Plaintiffs 6, 50, 36, 47, 50, 50, 47, 47, 47, 57, 47, 57, 47, 57, 47, 57, 57, 57, 57, 67, 67, 2, and 57, Plaintiff 1, 2, and 5, Plaintiff 1, 2, and 87, 2,

4. Conclusion

All of the plaintiffs' claims are accepted.

[Attachment 1] List of Plaintiffs: omitted

[Attachment 2] Work Force by Plaintiff: omitted

Judges Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Judge) Support for the present and present mooring

Note 1) As to the same engine with detailed specifications, the car-frequency engine reached 90 to 100 types, and 4D56 engines reached 50 to 60 types.

Note 2) 2.4. (Provision of 2-hour Safety Education) and 2.17.

Note 3) 1.31 and 2.7

Note 4) 2. 16. (Provision of safety education for two hours and 40 minutes)