임금
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims against the conjunctive defendant are dismissed.
2. The primary defendant is respectively against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. On June 1, 2009, the primary Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant H”) concluded a service contract with Defendant H to entrust the final inspection, ex-post management, customer use method education, and other customer-related work as requested by Defendant H (hereinafter “instant service contract”) with the primary Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant I”) for the purpose of manufacturing, selling, and leasing industrial cargo loading, etc.
Plaintiff
A BDD E F G M on July 31, 2009, June 1, 201, 201, June 12, 2012, 201, December 26, 2011, December 26, 201, 201, September 1, 201, 201
The Plaintiffs, on the date indicated below, concluded a separate employment contract with Defendant I on the date indicated below, and performed follow-up management duties, etc. of products manufactured by Defendant H, and received notice of dismissal from Defendant I on June 3, 2014 (the date of dismissal July 4, 2014).
[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 through 5, 12 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the part of the claim against Defendant I
A. The Plaintiffs seek confirmation that the dismissal on July 4, 2014 against Defendant I was null and void in preparation for a case where the Plaintiffs and Defendant H did not establish an employee dispatch relationship and the claim against Defendant H was not accepted.
B. Article 70(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that the provisions concerning indispensable co-litigation shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where a claim by a part of co-litigants is legally incompatible with that by another co-litigants, or where a claim by a part of co-litigants is legally incompatible with that by another co-litigants. Here, “legal incompatible” means a different evaluation of the same factual relationship, and where the legal effect of one of the two claims is acknowledged, the other is recognized.