1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claims are all dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Basic facts

A. On March 6, 2013, the Defendant subcontracted 1.148 billion won of the construction cost of reinforced concrete construction among H new construction works, an urban residential housing located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant construction”) to I Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I”).

B. The Plaintiffs and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are the I-affiliated workers.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that they provided labor at the site of the instant construction work, and that, around July 2013, the Defendant’s site captain demanded that the instant construction work be continuously changed due to the payment of labor cost on behalf of I.

The Plaintiffs were again demanded from the head of the Defendant’s site site that “I and I will suspend construction only for three days so that I and I would be able to conclude a contract,” while continuing the construction of the instant horses, and that the wages of the employees belonging to I so far would be paid directly by the Defendant, and that “I will prepare a detailed statement that the Defendant would pay the unpaid wages.”

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs suspended construction and submitted to the Defendant a statement of direct payment due under the name of the representative of each type of work.

Therefore, according to the direct payment agreement, the defendant is obligated to pay each of the money stated in the attached Table 2 of the claim amount in the attached Table to the plaintiffs and damages for delay.

3. In light of all the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, it is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant agreed to pay labor cost directly to the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant and the plaintiffs, even if considering the whole evidence submitted by the plaintiffs, so the above argument by the plaintiffs is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.