1. The part of the plaintiff A's lawsuit demanding confirmation of worker status shall be dismissed.

2. Plaintiff A’s remainder of claims and Plaintiff B.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a legal entity that manufactures and sells automobile parts and E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E")

(F) A limited liability company F (hereinafter referred to as “F”)

2) G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”)

) The Defendant Company’s in-house partner company (hereinafter referred to as “in-house partner company of this case”) shall be collectively referred to as “in-house partner company.”

(2) On May 18, 2002, Plaintiff A entered into an employment contract with F on April 24, 2006 and took charge of on-site management work.

3) F was closed on January 1, 2008; Plaintiff B, Plaintiff C, affiliated with each of the instant subsidiaries, entered into an employment contract, and entered into an on-site management office, and E closed on November 11, 2016; Plaintiff A and B entered each of the subsidiaries and entered the employment contract with G and entered each of the subsidiaries and entered each of them into an on-site management office. 4) At the time when the Plaintiffs worked for the instant in-house subcontractor, the employees of the said in-house subcontractor were in charge of production duties at the Defendant’s factory in accordance with the contract between the Defendant and the instant in-house subcontractor.

B. The examination of illegal dispatch by the Korea Employment and Labor Office and the Defendant’s recruitment 1) The Gwangju Regional Labor and Labor Office of the Gwangju Regional Labor and Labor Office (hereinafter “Military Labor and Labor Office”) shall be referred to as “Military Labor and Labor Office”

From July 20, 2005 to October 22, 2005, the Defendant and the Defendant’s in-house subcontractor inspected working conditions, such as automobile, machinery and metal industry subcontracting, wages, etc. (hereinafter “illegal dispatch inspection”), and the Military Labor Agency’s direct production process “the result of the inspection” does not constitute the subject of dispatch, but is subject to the Defendant’s command and order by 64 production workers and 55 production workers of G in-house who are in charge of the direct production process as well as 65 production workers of E, who are in charge of the direct production process, and perform their duties, and thus lack the independence in the labor management. Such use relationship is governed by the Dispatch Workers Protection Act (hereinafter “Dispatch Act”).

temporary placement of illegal workers in violation of this section.