1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 15,774,00 for Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 10,118,00 for Plaintiff B; (c) KRW 15,504,00 for Plaintiff C; and (d) KRW 23,815 for Plaintiff D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a company engaged in oral manufacturing, supply, and sales business.

The defendant's oral manufacturing process consists of ① product planning and design, ② sample production, ③ foundation work, ④ locking work (in the form of a verbal tamping and winging the foundation's bamboo), ⑤ low-furning work (in accordance with the work order, tamping and drying up the body of the foundation with the bamboo sealed in the frame) and 6th works in the order of inspection and delivery.

B. The Plaintiffs were paid money in proportion to the number of verbal statements that they worked by the Defendant to work on the third floor of the Defendant’s building from the date stated in the separate sheet “the date of withdrawal” to the date stated in the separate sheet “the date of withdrawal.”

2. A (Plaintiffs) shall produce and supply A products in accordance with the work instruction and inspection criteria set out by A (Defendants).

4. Time A to pay remunerations shall be paid after receiving a supply of products made by him/her, and the time A to pay remunerations shall be determined by mutual agreement;

5. In principle, Gap shall provide raw materials in this contract in special provisions for raw materials, manufacturing facilities, manufacturing places, etc.;

B shall, in principle, use his own production facilities, etc., and the production place shall be provided by A, taking into account the detailedness of B, with the production facilities, places, etc.

C. The remaining Plaintiffs except Plaintiffs H, I, L, and N prepared a “production supply contract” with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant production supply contract”). The main contents are as follows.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 1 through 15, Eul evidence 35 through 41, Eul evidence 43 through 46 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The plaintiffs asserted that they were workers in a substantive subordinate relationship with the defendant, so the defendant is entitled to Article 34 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 8 (1) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act.