1. The defendant shall express his/her intention of employment to the plaintiffs.

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

Basic Facts

The defendant is a company whose business purpose is the storage batteries, sound place of business and other batteries manufacturing and selling business, etc., and has its head office in Daejeon and produced and sold the distribution ground, etc. in a factory located in Jeonju-gun E (hereinafter “instant factory”).

Plaintiff

A entered the F (hereinafter referred to as “F”) on February 4, 2009, and succeeded to employment as a stock company G (hereinafter referred to as “G”) on January 1, 2015, and Plaintiff B and C entered the G on January 1, 2015.

The manufacturing process of the Defendant and the Defendant in the form of performance of duties is carried out in the order of “the mixture assembly of smoke mixtures scaming scambling scams” as follows.

Each of the above processes is carried out in accordance with the automatic flow production method, in which, by melting the water supply, etc., which is the materials of the smoke of the work process with the consortiums, robots, etc., the materials made by mixing them with chemical ingredients, mixed with rhhydys, and rhing the theater (e.g.) into the exhauster mold and rhying the rhym with the rhym in the exhauster mold and rhying the rhym in the exhauster mold, the exhauster filled with the rhym in which the exhaustr was prefabricatedd with the rhym, and the rhym in which the rhym is charged with the rhym, which is the materials of the smoke of the work process with the pipes, robots, robots, etc., and the rhym in which the b

Since 2000 when the Defendant started operating the factory of this case, the Defendant continued to carry out its business, such as the in-house subcontractor, for the purpose of enhancing the productivity and efficiency of the production process as a whole.

The main contents of the production contract agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”) and the agreement on the contract cost attached thereto prepared by the Defendant between G and G, one of such in-house subcontractors, relating to the in-house fairness (hereinafter referred to as “in-house subcontractor”) are as shown in attached Tables 1 and 2.

Plaintiff

At the time of February 4, 2009, A joined F as another intra-company partner company of the defendant.