The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

1. On the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiffs, the lower court rejected all of the claims by the Plaintiffs against the Defendants, and rejected all of the claims by the Plaintiffs except that the Defendant Incorporated Foundation A (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated”) with respect to the Plaintiffs’ wage claims against the Defendants partially recognized the obligation to pay wages of the Plaintiffs, C, D, E, F, G, and H.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just and there is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on liability for damages and obligation to pay wages, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the Defendant Corporation, the lower court determined that the Defendant Corporation should pay the amount equivalent to the activity cost that the said Plaintiffs could have received during the period of unfair activity restriction as wages on the premise that the worker status of the disabled and disabled citizens belonging to the Defendant Corporation is recognized, on the grounds as stated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the calculation of workers and activity expenses of the disabled persons

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.