All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. AF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “AF”) concluded a contractual relationship with AH Ulsan Factory with respect to the heat of body parts of the vehicle model in AH Ulsan Factory and delivery agency business. However, around January 2017, AG terminated a contractual relationship with AG. AG terminated a contractual relationship with the Plaintiffs by paying annual leave allowances, retirement allowances, etc. to the Plaintiffs who had established a contractual relationship around that time.

B. After that, around January 19, 2017, the Defendant entered into a contract with AF to start the above work from February 1, 2017, on consignment of the supply and storage of AI, AJ, AK, AK, AL, and AM model parts within the said AH Ulsan factory.

C. Accordingly, on January 24, 2017, the Defendant publicly announced the employment of new employees who worked in AG with respect to the foregoing work, and employed new employees through the interview procedure and the announcement of successful applicants around January 26, 2017. The Plaintiffs entered into a labor contract with the Defendant on February 1, 2017, which was entered into between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs on February 1, 2017 as being employed as production workers in AH2 factory and receiving the same rank as “the same as the previous one” and “the previous one” (hereinafter referred to as “instant labor contract”).

【Non-contentious facts, Gap 1 through 5, 7 evidence, Eul 1 through 4 (including abnormal numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. While entering into an employment contract with AG in 2007, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the employment of the Plaintiffs from AG on January 2017.

The Defendant paid wages to the Plaintiffs according to the wage increase rate applied in AG, and entered into a labor contract with the Plaintiffs on February 2017 as “the same as the existing one” or “the same as the previous one.”

In addition, wages have been paid to other workplace workers according to the above method.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiffs in 2018.