1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the plaintiff (appointed party and counterclaim defendant) among the judgment of the court of first instance expanded from the trial of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The designated parties indicated in the annexed list of the designated parties, including the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiffs, etc.”) were employed by the Defendant for construction business, etc. during the pertinent work period in the table of “amount claimed by the selected parties and the initial date of calculation,” and worked at the construction site of the Yangsan Busan National University Industry Convergence Center.

B. During the above service period, the Plaintiff, etc. was unable to receive money in the corresponding claim amount as wages or retirement allowances from the Defendant during the said service period.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, etc. the amount indicated in the corresponding claim column of “amount claimed by the selected party and the initial date of calculation” as wages or retirement allowances, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act from the date indicated in the corresponding claim column of “the initial date of calculation” to the date of full payment.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion on the termination of the lawsuit, the Defendant asserts that measures such as the declaration of termination of the lawsuit are necessary, since the Appointor and the Defendant did not object to the decision substituting conciliation in the process of the first instance conciliation, the lawsuit between the Appointor

The court of first instance referred the instant case to the conciliation committee on June 15, 2017, but rendered a decision in lieu of conciliation (hereinafter “instant decision”) on June 19, 2017 as the parties failed to reach an agreement, and submitted a written objection to the effect that the Defendant only raises an objection against the Plaintiff’s portion and does not raise an objection to the designated parties’ portion on June 27, 2017, is significant in this court.

When there is an objection against a part of the decision in lieu of conciliation, the decision shall be made in full.