1. The Defendants jointly do so to the Plaintiff (designated parties) and the designated parties, respectively, in the column for the claim amount of the attached Table 2.

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) asserts that the Plaintiff and the designated parties were employed by the Defendants and provided labor, but did not receive wages, and that they did not receive wages, the Plaintiff and the designated parties filed a claim against the Defendants for the payment of each claim amount (total amount of KRW 22,337,740, hereinafter “instant wage”) as indicated in each claim column in the attached Table 2.

In addition, even though Defendant B did not directly conclude an employment contract with the Plaintiff and the designated parties, Defendant B allowed Defendant B to use his own business name to Defendant C, and the Plaintiff and the designated parties concluded an employment contract with the mistake of the Defendant B as the business owner. Thus, Defendant B asserts that Defendant B is liable to pay the instant wage to the Plaintiff and the designated parties under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. Defendant B’s summary of Defendant B’s assertion asserts that although Defendant B was the representative of Defendant B’s name, he merely lent his name to Defendant C, he does not have any obligation to pay the instant wage.

2. In full view of the written statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings, defendant C was engaged in the housing construction business with the trade name "D", defendant B was registered as the representative in the above Eul's name and allowed defendant C to use the seal in the name of the defendant B when concluding an employment contract, etc., and defendant B was ordered to give instructions to the plaintiff and the selected parties who are employees of Eul, or to participate in the staff meeting ceremony. On the other hand, the plaintiff and the selected parties concluded a labor contract under the name of the defendant B on each of the employment days listed in the attached Table Nos. 2 and retired on each of the retirement days, and the plaintiff and the designated parties were not paid the wages of this case until now.

In full view of this, Defendant C is an employer.