1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The plaintiffs' total costs of litigation.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2015, the Defendant was awarded a contract for construction cost of KRW 1,082,700,000 with respect to the construction work of the old-si land-based detached housing and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

B. Plaintiff A, along with three other construction sites of G, performed the steel bars and assembly works of this case, and Plaintiff B and two other parties, together with Plaintiff B and the instant construction site.

In addition, Plaintiff A leased pumps equipment and used them at the construction site of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs recruited the body of persons and work with the body of persons at the construction site, and each of them is divided into the body of persons who received labor costs in a lump sum.

The Defendant is a construction business operator that received a contract for the instant construction project, and the co-defendant D (hereinafter referred to as “D”) of the first instance trial is the site supervision of the instant construction site.

Plaintiff

At the request of D from January 2016 to February 2, 2016, A performed steelworks and assembly works at the construction site of this case as well as three other persons, from January 2016 to February 2, 2016, and the wage claims of Plaintiff A and India amount to KRW 17,480,00.

Plaintiff

B At the request of D from January 2016 to February 2016, 2016, as the field supervisor D, performed the instant work of cutting trees at the construction site of this case with the human father H and two others, and the wage claims of the Plaintiff B and the father are KRW 6,660,000.

In addition, the plaintiff A received a promise to pay equipment rent from the defendant and D and had the J of the "I" owner of the business at the construction site of this case puts the pumps into the pumps, and the claim for equipment rent is KRW 7,200,000.

Therefore, the Defendant, the owner of the building (which appears to refer to the principal contractor), should pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 24,680,000 (=17,480,000), KRW 7,200,000, KRW 6,660,000 to Plaintiff B, and delay damages for each of the above amounts.

(b).