1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiffs is revoked, and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2...

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On March 19, 2012, the Plaintiffs and the co-Plaintiffs in the first instance trial (H, I, J, K, L, and M) provided labor as workers of N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”), but they did not receive wages due to the company’s bankruptcy, and filed an application for confirmation of eligibility for substitute payment with the Defendant pursuant to Article 10(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Wage Claim Guarantee Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 26318, Jun. 15, 2015).

B. On February 15, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiffs and the co-Plaintiffs of the first instance trial on the ground that “No details of daily employment insurance reports are available, no objective basis exists to verify whether the payment was directly made and the details of the delayed payment of wages are confirmed, and it is impossible to withdraw the complaint before confirmation of the details of the delayed payment of wages after submitting the complaint to the Plaintiff, the representative of the instant company.”

(hereinafter) Of the notice of non-verification as seen earlier, the part against the plaintiffs in the notice of non-verification is referred to collectively as the "disposition of this case"). 【No dispute exists, and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as "written evidence with multiple numbers") and the whole purport of the pleading as a whole.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was Plaintiff A, B, C, and D worked in the R New Construction Site directly operated by the instant company on or around February 2010 at the place of Q new construction, Plaintiff E, F, and G around July 2009 (hereinafter “instant construction site”) and did not receive any wage from the instant company, even though they worked in the R New Construction Site directly operated by the instant company on or around September 2009 (hereinafter “instant two construction sites”).

Therefore, the instant disposition was made by mistake of facts, and is unlawful.

B. (1) In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone was an employee of the instant company and worked at the construction site of this case.

(1) The amount of wages as alleged by the Company is equal to that of the Company.