1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Defendant B, C, and A in the judgment is modified as follows.

The defendant, the plaintiff 1.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 7, and 9 as well as the overall purport of arguments, it can be acknowledged that the defendant (the constructor under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry) contracted with J work by the Incheon Metropolitan City Mayor around June 2017 (hereinafter "K"). According to the evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, and 9 of the evidence No. 5-1, 5-2, and 9, K did not inquire from the L Association's website as a construction business operator under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, and the defendant representative director stated that "K knows it is known that it does not have a construction business registration." Accordingly, it is acknowledged that it subcontracted to the constructor under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and that it is not a constructor under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Construction Industry at the time of the aforementioned construction work.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the plaintiffs were employed by I as stated in the attached list of the plaintiffs' wages in arrears, etc. and provided labor, the defendant must pay the plaintiffs the unpaid wages and their interest in arrears jointly with I pursuant to Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act.

B. The Defendant received the monthly payment record of daily work expenses for workers who provided labor at the above construction site through K, and subscribed to the 4th insurance and the retirement mutual-aid installment on the basis thereof, and received the relevant insurance premium from the Incheon Metropolitan City Federation, which is the ordering person.

However, in the case of Plaintiff A, it is written only on the payment record of daily labor expenses after August 2017 (In addition, Plaintiff A also sought payment of daily labor expenses after August 2, 2017, which was already received from the Defendant) in the case of Plaintiff A, the remaining Plaintiffs are written on the payment record of daily labor expenses.