1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff B, D, G, K, L, and M is dismissed, respectively.

2. Part as to Plaintiff C of the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that the attached Tables 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance is changed to those of the judgment of the court of first instance, and that the attached Tables 1 and 2 are included in the attached Table 2 of the judgment of the court of second instance, and that the "D" of the 16th judgment is included in the "A, D, and H, except in the case where the number is indicated specially," and that the "D" of the 16th judgment is included in the "A, D, and H", and that the "decision as to whether the plaintiff is a worker prescribed by the Labor Standards Act" of the 11th judgment is added between the 7th judgment and the 8th judgment and that of the 4th judgment are added.

Paragraph (2) and 3) and part of Paragraph (4) (Article 13) (Article 7 through 14) (Article 14) of the Act on the Performance Rates, Visiting Expenses, and Subsidies included in the total amount of wages that serve as the basis for calculating average wages) are as follows paragraph (3). Since the part of Paragraph (5) (Articles 15, 16, and 16, and 16, and 5, respectively, are the same as the judgment of the court of first instance except for the entry under Paragraph (4), they shall be accepted as they are in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Meanwhile, among the plaintiffs, the defendant earned income from being employed by another workplace during the period of work for the defendant, and since such concurrent act indicates that the plaintiffs performed their duties without being exclusively used by the defendant, the plaintiffs do not constitute workers or at least the above plaintiffs do not constitute workers.

Upon examining the purport of the entire pleadings as pointed out by the Defendant as a result of the order to submit each tax information as to the Suwon Tax Office, Incheon Tax Office, and Goyang Tax Office of the court of the trial, the Plaintiff D’s earned income of KRW 7,200,000 from N in 209, Plaintiff H’s earned income of KRW 3,367,000 from U.S. in 201, Plaintiff H’s earned income of KRW 3,367,00 from U.S. Co., Ltd in 201, and KRW 5,824,000 from Hyundai Inn&W Co., Ltd in the same year.