A. 35,904,660 won for Plaintiff A, 34,270,980 won for Plaintiff B, and 38,722,020 won for Plaintiff C and each of the above.

A. The defendant is a local government that has the Busan Metropolitan City Nakdong River Management Headquarters as its affiliated place of business, and the plaintiffs are the workers belonging to the defendant.

B. On November 1, 2013, the Defendant retired the Plaintiff A, B, and C on the ground that the contract expires.

Accordingly, on January 23, 2014, the above plaintiffs asserted to the Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission that the above plaintiffs retired from office on the ground of the termination of the contract term, and applied for remedy.

C. On March 20, 2014, Busan Regional Labor Relations Commission accepted an application for remedy from the said Plaintiffs on the ground that the said Plaintiffs were converted to an employee without a fixed period of time pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Fixed-Term and Part-Time Workers (hereinafter “ Fixed-Term Act”).

On April 16, 2014, the defendant appealed and filed an application for reexamination with the National Labor Relations Commission, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the defendant's application for reexamination on June 19, 2014 on the ground that the first inquiry court was justifiable.

The Defendant, at Daejeon District Court 2014Guhap103076, lost the claim for the revocation of the adjudication on retrial. The Daejeon High Court 2015Nu11965 appealed, but the above court dismissed the Defendant’s appeal on November 19, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the plaintiffs' assertion of the whole purport of pleading as to the parties concerned is an inorganic contract worker who falls under the "Environmental Spanwon" belonging to the defendant, and the plaintiff D and E are an inorganic contract worker who falls under the "Facilities Institute".

Since the Plaintiffs did not receive wages to be paid to inorganic contract workers who belong to the Defendant’s “Environmental Unified Institute” and “Facilities Institute,” the Defendant is based on Article 6 of the Labor Standards Act and the Defendant’s regulations on the management of inorganic contract workers and the wage payment standards.