1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 16,929,210 won and each of them.

1. Fact that there is no dispute over the facts of recognition [based for recognition], Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 4 (including each number), the purport of whole pleadings;

A. As temporary agency workers, Plaintiff A, B, C, E, G, and I are the Plaintiff D, F, H, and J as a fixed-term worker, and the Defendant (i.e., the trade name was changed from “former Social Support Electronic Co., Ltd.,” to “Co., Ltd.,” on March 30, 2012; (ii) on September 9, 2013, to “FFE”; and (iii) on March 17, 2015, to “former Social Support Electronic Co., Ltd.,” the production of products was conducted at the place of business of the Defendant. However, around August 2005, the Defendant terminated or refused to renew the employment contract with the subcontractor company to which the Plaintiffs, who are temporary workers, belong.

B. The temporary agency workers, including Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff F, filed an application against the Defendant for remedy against unfair dismissal, but the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the request for remedy from the temporary agency workers and dismissed the request for remedy from the temporary agency workers.

Therefore, the above worker filed a lawsuit with the court seeking the revocation of the above review ruling, and the court shall, in the case of the dispatched worker, have the previous Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (amended by Act No. 8076 of Dec. 21, 2006; hereinafter "former Dispatch Act").

(2) The court below dismissed the claim of the above worker on the ground that it does not constitute the requirements for deeming direct employment as stipulated in Article 6(3) of the former Dispatch Act, although it is recognized that the above worker performed his duties with respect to illegal dispatch in violation of the former Dispatch Act. The judgment became final and conclusive around March 27, 2008.

(Then, through Supreme Court en banc Decision 2007Du22320 Decided September 18, 2008, Article 6(3) of the former Dispatch Act applies to illegal dispatch. (C)

On November 1, 2010, the following agreements and annexed agreements have been signed, and the defendant and the plaintiffs have joined the agreements.