1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid wages to the plaintiffs jointly with the defendant C of the first instance trial, since the defendant is registered as the business operator of the company E in the name of the defendant, jointly with the defendant C of the first instance trial.

Even if the Defendant is not recognized as a joint business proprietor of the E company, the Defendant permitted C to operate the E company using his name, registered as a business proprietor in the name of the Defendant, and the Plaintiffs are mistaken for the Defendant as a business proprietor by allowing C to use the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant in the operation of the E company. As such, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiffs wages as the nominal owner of Article 2

B. Defendant E Company is actually operated by Defendant C, the husband of the Defendant, and the Defendant only lent its business registration name, and did not participate in the operation of E Company at all, and the Defendant does not bear the obligation to pay the unpaid wages to the Plaintiffs.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the purport of Gap's evidence 3-3, 4, 5, and 8 as to the claim for wage payment, are as follows: (i) the plaintiffs filed a petition with the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office for the delayed payment of wages to Eul, and (ii) the defendant filed a complaint with Eul for the delayed payment of wages to Eul, but not filed a petition or complaint against the defendant for the same reason; (iii) the plaintiff appeared in the Daegu Regional Employment and Labor Office and stated that Eul employed himself; and (iv) C issued a summary order of KRW 4,00,00 as a violation of the Labor Standards Act as to the delayed payment of wages to the plaintiffs, but the defendant was not subject to criminal punishment due to the violation of the Labor Standards Act; (v) the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs was operated jointly with the defendant

The plaintiffs lack to recognize that they were employed by the defendant, and otherwise recognize this.