1.(a)

Defendant I shall pay Plaintiff A 15,681,420 won, Plaintiff B 12,730,420 won, Plaintiff D 14,481,670 won, and Plaintiff E.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's subparagraphs 1 through 4, 11, 12, 21, 25 through 29, 32 (including provisional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply);

(ii) Eul evidence 1, Eul's evidence 1, Eul's evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

A. around June 201, Defendant I acquired the right to operate the instant club “L” from K (hereinafter “instant club”) and operated the instant club by May 9, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “Plaintiff A”) worked as the head of the instant club from around 201 to around 201, and Defendant I received KRW 2.5 million each month from Defendant I, and Defendant I paid KRW 15 million each (hereinafter “instant money”).

C. By December 20, 2014, Plaintiff E and F served in the instant club until May 9, 2015, Plaintiff A, B, C, and D.

Plaintiff

G and H enter into an employment contract with Defendant I and work as a DNA at the instant club.

On May 9, 2015, dismissal was made around 2015.

E. Meanwhile, Defendant J married Defendant I and Defendant J on November 28, 2003, but divorced on June 28, 2016.

2. Claim against Defendant I by 6 of the plaintiff, etc.

A. The main point of the argument is that six (6) including the plaintiff A et al. retired from office after entering into an employment contract with the defendant I, the defendant I is obligated to pay the wages and retirement allowances unpaid to the plaintiff A, B, D, E, and F, and that the plaintiff et al. is obligated to return the money of this case, which is the job deposit, to six (6)

Defendant I asserted that six (6) including Plaintiff A, etc. invested the instant money in the instant club and received KRW 2,500,000 per month as the operating expenses of the instant club, but did not hold the status of workers.

B. In light of the following circumstances, 6 Plaintiff A et al., upon considering the facts acknowledged prior to whether 6 persons, including Plaintiff A et al. were workers, and the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 16, 31, and Eul evidence Nos. 10 and the entire purport of the pleadings, 6 persons, including Plaintiff A et al., retired from office by entering into a labor contract with Defendant I.