beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. Plaintiff F: (a) KRW 1,164,504; (b) KRW 2,020,428 to Plaintiff X; (c) KRW 1,874,977 to Plaintiff Z; and (d) Plaintiff AB.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The defendant entered into a contract for work with several companies that have employed the plaintiffs as companies established for the purpose of manufacturing and selling different fish, etc., and the plaintiffs entered into a contract for work with the defendant's factory located in Gwangju-gu AR and Y in Gwangju-gun AS under each of the above companies (hereinafter referred to as "Gwanju-gu factory" and "Masung-gun factory located in Gwangju-gu".
(B) The defendant's non-regular workers' union (representative AT) against the defendant's representative director at the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency is newly employed on six occasions (on March 5, 2004, April 29, 2004; June 24, 2004; May 6, 2005; December 30, 2005; and January 1, 2007). (b) The defendant's non-regular workers' union (representative AT) against the defendant's representative director at the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency (amended by Act No. 8076, Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter "former Dispatch Act").
(1) On January 27, 2004, the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency filed a petition for a violation of the former Act on the ground that "the outsourcing workers, who provide labor in the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency, are in the form of a contract, but the actual performance of their duties is in the form of a contract," and on March 12, 2004, it filed a complaint with the investigative agency against the defendant on the ground that "the outsourcing workers, who provide labor in the Gwangju Regional Labor Agency, are in the form of a contract, but are in the form of a contract, the actual performance of their duties is in violation of the former Dispatch Act," and on March 12, 2004, "the contracting companies, BD, BD, BB, BG, BG, BG, and HB, who are 164 workers who provide labor in the Sungsung Factory, are in the form of contract, but the actual performance of their duties is in the form of dispatch of workers and thus constitutes the violation of the former Dispatch Act." The defendant's complaint is filed against the defendant's investigation agency.