1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to each of the Plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet in the same list “A” column.

1. Determination on the claim against Defendant V Co., Ltd.

(a) Where a construction business is conducted on two or more occasions a contract under subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (hereinafter referred to as "contract for construction work") and a subcontractor who is not a constructor under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the same Act fails to pay wages (limited to wages generated from the relevant construction work) to workers he/she employs, a immediate upper tier contractor shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of wages to workers employed by the subcontractor;

(2) Where an immediate upper-tier contractor under paragraph (1) is not a constructor under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the immediate upper-tier contractor under the same subparagraph shall be deemed an immediate upper-tier contractor.

B. Articles 44-2 and 109 of the Labor Standards Act provide that where a contract is made on two or more occasions in a construction business, if a subcontractor who is not a constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry fails to pay wages to his/her employees, an immediate upper tier contractor of the subcontractor shall be jointly and severally liable with the subcontractor to pay wages to his/her employees.

The purpose of this is to impose liability on a subcontractor when such risk has been realized due to a subcontractor's failure to perform his/her duty to pay wages by committing an illegal act committed against a person whose financial capacity, etc. for construction work is not verified because the immediately preceding contractor is not registered for a construction business. In addition, a immediately preceding contractor is liable for the failure to pay wages of a subcontractor even if he/she does not have a direct cause.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Do8417 Decided November 12, 2015). C.

The evidence 1-1, 2, A-2, 10 to 10.