All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 18, 2016, the Defendant, which was established for the purpose of the construction business and completed registration under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, was performing the said construction business under a contract with the construction business association for construction and improvement of the housing reconstruction and improvement project under the contract for the construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”).

B. From July 2016 to October 2016, the Plaintiffs were employed by S, who is not a construction industry operator, as defined in Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and performed a mold molding service at the construction site of this case.

(c)

The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against S seeking payment of wages as Seoul Southern District Court 2018Kadan12852, and the judgment was finalized on October 5, 2018 upon winning the plaintiff's judgment on October 20, 2018, and S did not pay wages to workers including the plaintiffs under the Seoul Southern District Court 2019 order 5209, the Seoul Southern District Court 2019 order 5710 order 571 (merger) order, which was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment for a violation of the Labor Standards Act (Seoul Southern District Court 2020No. 2654).

(d)

Some of the plaintiffs receive a small amount of substitute payment from the Labor Welfare Corporation after the determination of the above civil judgment, and the current plaintiffs' unpaid wages are stated in the purport of the claim.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs' assertion is a direct and direct supplier who subcontracted part of the construction work of this case to S. Thus, since S, which is a sewage level rather than a constructor under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Framework Act on Construction Industry, failed to pay wages to the plaintiffs, it is jointly and severally liable to pay wages to S under Article 44-2 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.

It is not so.

Even if the defendant did not pay the wages to the plaintiffs due to the reasons attributable to the defendant, the defendant is in accordance with Article 44 (1) of the Labor Standards Act.