1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the remaining plaintiffs except Plaintiff O, P, S, V, and K are as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 18, 2014, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) subcontracted the instant construction work of reinforced concrete building work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) among D Control Building Construction Works located in Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Jung-gu, and the Defendant Company re-subcontracted the instant construction work to Defendant A, who conducts reinforced concrete construction business without registering the construction business.

B. Defendant A paid the number of the members per day (ordinary KRW 170,00) and employed them, and the head of the team from among the members, appointed the team leader to pay the total amount of wages of the members of the team leader at one time and distributed and paid them.

Among the plaintiffs, the plaintiff E is the team leader.

The instant corporation was completed around March 2015.

C. In the case of violation of the Labor Standards Act by the Seoul Southern District Court 2016 High Court 2016 High Court 1509, Plaintiff O, P, S,V, and K received all wages at the construction site of this case, and testified to the effect that there was no unpaid amount, or submitted a written confirmation to the same effect.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 8, 10, Eul evidence 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendants did not dispute the facts that the above Plaintiffs had been employed as a human body at the construction site of this case. However, unlike the allegations in the relevant criminal case, inasmuch as the above Plaintiffs were paid all wages at the construction site of this case, and testified to the effect that there was no unpaid amount, or submitted the confirmation document to the same effect (this does not mean that the Defendants received wages from the Defendants after the pronouncement of the first instance judgment), the Defendants’ claim for payment of unpaid wages cannot be accepted.

However, in this case where only the above plaintiffs appealed, the judgment of the first instance was revoked and the above plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.