1. The Defendants are jointly and severally and severally against the Plaintiffs A, B, and G, each of KRW 3,600,000, and Plaintiff C of KRW 2,970,00, and Plaintiff F, H, I, J, K, and K.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the facts of recognition Gap evidence No. 1, the fact-finding inquiry report to the O association of this court, and the whole purport of the arguments, ① the plaintiffs are employed by the defendant M who is the actual representative of P (title Q: Q) from May 1, 2016 to September 3, 2016, and the defendant M was subcontracted by the defendant N Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "N"), and retired from office by performing the duties of molding trees, etc. at the site of the "Seified R New Construction Corporation" subcontracted by the defendant M Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "N"), but he was not paid each wage recorded in the order by the defendant M, ② the defendant N is the direct contractor of the defendant M as the specialized constructor, and the defendant M or P is not registered as a construction business.

B. (1) According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant M is an employer who employs the Plaintiffs, and Defendant N is an immediate upper contractor of a subcontractor who does not have a construction business registration, and is jointly and severally with Defendant M pursuant to Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act, and is liable to pay unpaid wages.

(2) As to this, Defendant N paid all the construction cost of this case to Defendant M, and Defendant M did not have any reason attributable to the above Defendant that Defendant M did not pay wages to the Plaintiffs, and thus, Defendant N cannot comply with the Plaintiffs’ claim.

However, Article 44-2(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that a direct contractor subcontracts construction works to a person whose financial capacity, etc. for construction works is not verified because he/she is not registered as a construction business, thereby causing an abstract risk as to a subcontractor’s failure to pay wages, and thus, a subcontractor is liable when such risk is realized (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8417, Nov. 12, 2015; Constitutional Court Decision 2013HunGa12, Apr. 24, 2014).