1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

Plaintiff

Social welfare foundation A (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff Foundation") is a corporation established for the purpose of establishing and operating a commuting system welfare facility for the elderly and disabled for the welfare of the disabled, which was designated as an activity support institution under the Act on Activity Support for Persons with Disabilities on October 5, 201 from the government market, and Plaintiff B is the representative director of the Plaintiff Foundation.

The defendants are those who worked in the plaintiff foundation as disabled assistants, the defendant C is the chairperson of the E-Trade Union, and the defendant D is the head of the government branch of the above association.

Plaintiff

The activity support projects of the Foundation are operated as subsidies from government agencies. The plaintiff B is judged to be difficult to pay various kinds of allowances with subsidies, and from August 2016, the plaintiff B prepared a written confirmation to the effect that it gives up the shortage of various legal allowances, such as weekly leave allowances, overtime work allowances, annual leave allowances, etc. from assistants and does not raise a civil or criminal objection against the business owner (hereinafter referred to as the "written confirmation of this case"). From July 2017, the defendants had been in charge of the preparation of the written confirmation of this case by the plaintiffs from around July 2017, the defendants filed a complaint with the competent labor office and made a reply to the problem.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 6-2, the argument of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the argument of the plaintiffs by the parties concerned in the judgment, the plaintiff foundation failed to engage in profit-making business, and it is not able to pay allowances to assistants under the Labor Standards Act, so it is not possible for them to be provided with subsidies. Thus, the plaintiff foundation made a written agreement of this case individually after sufficiently explaining this situation to workers in the guarantee of the existence of the institution.

Although the defendants are well aware of this fact, they are listed in the attached Table 1 list with a view to slandering the plaintiffs.