1. The part concerning Plaintiff J in Paragraph 1 of the order of the court of first instance as follows.

The defendant is the plaintiff JJ.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a company established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling other fish, and the defendant is working place in attached Form 1.

1. The term “the instant contract” refers to a contract for work (hereinafter “the instant contract”) entered into with each of the relevant companies (hereinafter “foreign company”). The Plaintiffs, after entering Nonparty Company, provided labor in charge of manufacturing, etc., with Defendant Company’s regular employees from the starting date of each relevant work period indicated in the “1. Work Place” according to the order, from the starting date of each relevant work period indicated in the said Table. B. The Defendant Company’s non-regular labor union (representative L) to which the Plaintiffs belong, filed a petition against the representative director, etc. of the Defendant Company in violation of the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers, and on November 26, 2003, the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency completed an investigation into the said petition case, and on January 27, 2004, the Defendant Company violated the Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers by taking the form of a contract for work, while the status of the work performance is considered to fall under the actual status of the temporary agency workers.

‘A corrective order was issued on the ground of the order of correction, and the defendant company was accused of a criminal charge to an investigation agency, the defendant company employed 52 temporary agency workers including the plaintiffs except the plaintiffs C and B on March 5, 2004 as new employees.

C. According to the documents attached to the reference documents submitted by the Defendant, which was delegated by the Defendant Company’s non-regular labor union on April 29, 2004, after the closure of argument in the first instance trial, the Defendant’s non-regular labor union of the Defendant Company to which the Plaintiffs belong appears to have delegated all the negotiating rights to the Federation of Democratic Textiles Trade Unions on March 6, 2004, and even if not, if not, the contents of the evidence No. 11 (press report materials) are added, the Defendant Company’s non-regular labor union including the Plaintiffs are based on the facts

(c).

E. The defendant to be seen in this regard.