1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is the representative of the in-house subcontractor in the modern automobile N.S., which is operated by Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Motor”) under a contract for the franchise and the Ma of Taeta. The Defendants are the Plaintiff’s employees.

When the Supreme Court Decision 2008Du4367 Decided July 22, 2010 was rendered, the Defendants, who belong to the NAF NF World Factory subcontractor, were to refuse collective bargaining with the Plaintiff and to collectively refuse to provide labor in the middle of October 30, 2010 and November 15, 2010 to December 2, 2010, by asserting that they were in the status of workers of modern automobiles who are not the Plaintiff in accordance with the purport of the above Supreme Court Decision.

As a result, the Plaintiff suffered from the loss of paying KRW 13,062,233 due to the input of substitute manpower and the additional overtime work cost, and thus, the Defendants shall jointly and severally compensate for the said loss.

B. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion does not have a duty to provide labor to the plaintiff who is not an employer.

The Defendants, in accordance with the laws and regulations on the protection, etc. of temporary agency workers, performed industrial actions, such as strike, etc., on a legitimate basis against modern automobiles recognized as the users of the Defendants.

Even if an industrial action is illegal, there is no reason to compensate for it. The majority of the Defendants, who are in the position of general partners of the intra-company subcontractor, merely refuse to work in accordance with the direction of the sub-committee, is therefore not liable for joint tort with the executives of the sub-committee or the sub-committee.

2. The claim of this case was made by the Defendants’ refusal to provide labor to the Plaintiff without any justifiable reason, and was led by the Defendants’ planning, instruction, and instruction of illegal strike. It is merely a union member or a general member.