1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the payment order against the Defendant exceeds the following amount: (a) Plaintiff E, F, G, and H.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus cite it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The following circumstances are revealed as to whether Plaintiff E is the Defendant’s employee, Gap evidence Nos. 18 and Eul evidence Nos. 1; ① the Defendant issued a career certificate to Plaintiff E that the Defendant worked for Plaintiff E from February 1, 1973 to October 1980; ② the above period overlaps considerably with the working period claimed by Plaintiff E; ② in light of Plaintiff E’s name, Plaintiff E appears to be relatively clear that the asbestos disease occurred due to asbestos, and there seems to be a little reason for Plaintiff E’s claim against the Defendant even after referring to false working conditions. On the other hand, Plaintiff E’s working period is 1973 and 40 years have passed, and there is no possibility that the Defendant did not keep the working records in the form of document; ③ Plaintiff E was in charge of white asbestos joint work, Plaintiff E’s work, wearing a garch at the work site, but its operation could not be acknowledged in light of the contents of Plaintiff E’s work and other details.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. As an incidental duty under the good faith principle accompanying a labor contract, an employer is obligated to devise necessary measures, such as improving human and physical environment, so that an employee does not harm life, body, or health in the course of providing his/her labor, and is liable to compensate for damages incurred by an employee by violating such duty. In such a case, the employer is liable for nonperformance.