The appeals of A, B, C, D, E, F, and G shall be dismissed.

All of the remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da40696 delivered on March 27, 1992, etc.). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, it is evident that the lower court fully accepted the claims of Plaintiffs A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. As such, the appeal filed by the Plaintiffs who won the entire winning case is unlawful as there is no benefit of appeal.

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiffs, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its decision after comprehensively considering the adopted evidence, on the ground that, in order to make a person employed by the plaintiff employer and engaged in a third party's work as a third party's worker at the third party's workplace, the plaintiff's employer is merely a formal objective, such as having no identity or independence as an employer, or having the same labor agency with a third party, and in fact, the defendant's employer is in a subordinate relationship with the third party, and the person who actually pays wages is a third party, and the party who provides labor is also a third party, so that an implied labor contract relationship between the defendant's employee and the third party is established. In light of the circumstances stated in its decision, the court below determined that a labor contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant's subcontractor cannot be deemed to have been established as a formal objective or implied labor contract relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant.