All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the defendant is as follows: "The second-class 14 and 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be followed by the argument that the defendant added to this court." The judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim shall be added, and the following 2. of the judgment shall be added between the 19th and 20th, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and such judgment shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. A part added between the second instance judgment Nos. 19 and 20

B. The Defendants’ assertion 1) First of all, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was based on the penalty clause under Article 8(4) of the instant contract for construction participation, and the instant contract for construction participation constitutes an employment contract under the Labor Standards Act in substance, and thus, the said penalty clause is deemed null and void as it violates Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act, which provides that “no contract for liquidated damages or indemnity for nonperformance of labor contract shall be concluded,” and thus, it is alleged that the said penalty clause is null and void as it is in violation of Article 20 of the Labor Standards Act, which provides that “No contract for liquidated damages or indemnity

(2) The Defendants, as alleged by the Defendants, did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the instant construction contract has the substance of the labor contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (2) Meanwhile, the Defendants, under the circumstances where Defendant C had to continue to receive a subcontract from the Plaintiff, prepared and issued a written rejection of the instant waiver of construction work in accordance with the Plaintiff’s coercion, and accordingly, asserted that it constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act, and thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. In addition, the Defendants paid wages to Defendant C and its employees even after the Plaintiff received a written rejection of the waiver of the instant construction work from Defendant C, which became invalid.