1. The plaintiffs' primary claims are dismissed.

2. The defendant expressed his intent to employ the plaintiffs.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, a juristic person established for the purpose of banking business, entered into a contract for driving personnel services with Nonparty Sam Man-man Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Man-man”) and Doum Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tumman Korea”) for the entrustment of vehicle driving, vehicle and parking management with the contents of the entrustment of vehicle driving, vehicle and parking management.

(hereinafter “instant service contract”). B.

The Plaintiffs entered into an employment contract with each of the instant service companies listed in the “temporary work agency” column as shown in the attached Form No. 4 as of the date of “admission” and are performing driving duties at the head office of the Defendant and each regional headquarters.

On July 2012, there is a person whose employment contract is terminated.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2 to 4, 17, Eul evidence 1 (including each number for a tentative number);

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiffs in relation to the employment relationship concluded with the service company of this case and provided the service to the defendant in accordance with the service contract of this case concluded between the service company and the defendant, but its substance constitutes the temporary placement of workers. Since the defendant who is the user company continues to use the plaintiffs as the temporary agency worker for more than two years, the plaintiffs are amended by Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 8076 of Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter "Revised Dispatch Act").

) The former Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 8076 of Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter “former Dispatch Act”).

Pursuant to the above, the direct employment is deemed to have been made at the expiration of two years from the date of entry or the obligation to directly employ the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that the above plaintiffs are the employer's status from that time, and the defendant is the defendant on July 1, 2007, the enforcement date of the revised Dispatch Act.