1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant leased a factory, equipment, etc. from S Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”), and produced and processed a set of gold paper and supplied it. The Plaintiffs were those who worked as the Defendant’s employee from November 2016 to September 2017, as stated in the separate sheet.

B. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs’ wages for August 2017 and for September 2017, and each unpaid payment to the Plaintiffs is as indicated in the “Unpaid Wage” column in the separate sheet.

C. Meanwhile, the non-party company paid to the Plaintiffs the amount equivalent to the wages paid on September 22, 2017, and the amount equivalent to the wages paid on October 23, 2017, respectively, on October 23, 2017. The amount is as indicated in the “Unpaid wage” column in the separate sheet.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the wages of this case and the damages for delay thereof to the plaintiffs, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The defendant's assertion on the defendant's defense that the non-party company had an implied agreement between the defendant's defendant that the non-party company should guarantee or concurrently accept the defendant's obligation to pay wages to the plaintiffs, and accordingly, the non-party company paid wages to the plaintiffs in the position of guarantor or concurrently assuming the obligation to pay wages to the plaintiffs. Thus, the defendant's obligation to pay wages to the plaintiffs was extinguished due to the non-party company's repayment.

In this regard, the plaintiffs merely borrowed money equivalent to the wages of this case from the non-party company for the purpose of maintaining their livelihood, and even if the plaintiffs transferred their wage claims to the non-party company, it is invalid because it violates the principle of direct payment, and thus, the plaintiffs' wage claims were not extinguished.