1. From December 28, 2017, the Defendant shall make to the Plaintiffs the pertinent claim amount on the attached sheet of claim amount and its related claim amount.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant subcontracted the manufacturing and construction of the CPVC pipeline to the New Construction Site at the time of Jinju-si Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nsung”) (hereinafter “instant construction”) that is the non-registered construction contractor.

B. Although the Plaintiffs were employed in the Gyeong River and worked at the instant construction site from July 26, 2017 to December 13, 2017, the Plaintiffs were not paid wages as indicated in the attached claim amount table.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact-finding inquiry and reply to the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

(a) Where a construction business is carried out on two or more occasions, a subcontractor who is not a constructor under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (any person who carries on construction business after making a registration, etc. under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry or other Acts) and fails to pay wages to workers employed by the subcontractor if the subcontractor and the subcontractor are jointly and severally liable to pay wages to workers employed by the subcontractor;

(Article 44-2 (1) of the Labor Standards Act).

According to the facts found above, the construction of this case was subcontracted from the defendant to Gyeongsungtech, and the Gyeongsungtech constitutes a subcontractor who is not a constructor under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. Thus, the defendant, who is the immediate contractor, bears the responsibility to pay wages to the plaintiffs who are workers employed by Gyeongsungtech.

C. Therefore, the defendant, as a direct contractor of the Corporation of this case, is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the money stated in paragraph (1) of this Article.

3. Thus, the plaintiffs' conclusion is that of this case.