In accordance with the selective claims added by this Court, the defendant is the plaintiff (appointed party).

2. In full view of the overall purport of the arguments and arguments in the testimony of witnesses M of the trial party and the statement No. 12 and 13 as to the claim based on the wage payment agreement, C had failed to perform the construction work during the instant construction, and accordingly, C had discussed about the increase in the construction cost with the Defendant, but failed to reach an agreement, and the construction was suspended on September 2016. Accordingly, the Defendant’s Vice-Minister N and the Director General requested M to request M to continue the construction work for which the Defendant would directly pay the Plaintiffs’ wages under the Defendant’s approval of the Defendant’s representative director, thereby explaining such circumstances to the Plaintiffs and recognizing the fact that M continued the construction work with the Plaintiffs by November 2016.

Therefore, pursuant to the wage payment agreement, the Defendant is obliged to dispute as to the existence and scope of the obligation of the Defendant from September 27, 2017 to September 16, 2020, the date following the final delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, as sought by the Plaintiff, as for each of the money listed in paragraph (2) of this case and each of the above money, to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. In conclusion, the claim based on the wage payment agreement added by the plaintiff in this court shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as they are without merit.

The first instance court has accepted a claim under an employment contract, but this court has selectedly joined it.