1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiffs stated in Gap evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence No. 3 (including family numbers) filed a lawsuit for labor payment of labor payment of KRW 78,228,00 and delayed damages against D (this Court case’s labor payment of KRW 78,228,00 and delayed damages) on September 25, 2013 (this case’s judgment was finalized on October 17, 2013). The judgment of this case became final and conclusive on October 17, 2013.

The defendant is the representative director of D, and the limited liability company I (hereinafter referred to as "I") is a company which has entered into an execution contract with D concerning the instant construction project, and J is the representative director of I.

2. The Plaintiffs’ assertion and judgment ① Summary of the primary assertion: the Plaintiffs, based on the instant judgment, issued compulsory execution (a claim seizure and collection order) against D’s property, but received only KRW 175,364.

This is because the defendant arbitrarily released and consumed D money by abusing the representative director's position.

The defendant is obligated to return unjust enrichment to D or pay damages to D, and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover unjust enrichment of 78,052,636 won in subrogation of D (=78,228,00 won - 175,364 won) or to recover damages.

② Preliminary assertion: The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant and provided labor under the direction and supervision of J, a field manager.

Even if the defendant employed the plaintiffs by J or I, the defendant is obligated to pay wages to the plaintiffs jointly with J or I under Article 44 or 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act, as a direct contractor who subcontracted the construction of this case to J or I. Thus, the defendant did not pay this.