1. The defendant, to the plaintiff A, KRW 6,825,00, KRW 7,887,00 for the plaintiff B, KRW 3,930,00 for the plaintiff C, and KRW 5,145 for the plaintiff D.

If the purport of the entire argument is added to each statement in the evidence No. 1-7 (A’s confirmation of the wage business owner in arrears) and the evidence No. 2 (a payment order for the finalized H), the Defendant Company, the constructor, shall subcontract the construction work he/she contracted to H, other than the constructor, in relation to the construction work for commercial buildings located in Ha, with respect to the construction work for commercial buildings located in Ha, and the Plaintiffs, employed by H, from January 3, 2017 to the same year.

3. It is recognized that, until 17.17., labor was provided at the above construction site, each of the amounts stated in the order has not been paid. As such, Defendant Company is the immediate contractor under Article 44-2(1) of the Labor Standards Act, and is jointly and severally liable to pay the unpaid wages to the Plaintiffs.

Defendant Company from May 8, 2017 to the same year

6. Although it is alleged that the Plaintiffs paid KRW 49,533,640 in total to H during the period of September, considering all the circumstances indicated in the record, including the fact that the Plaintiffs received a written confirmation of the overdue wage business owner from the Daejeon Regional Employment and Labor Agency, that the Plaintiffs employed a large number of persons other than the Plaintiffs, and that H would have invested into the construction site of this case by employing a large number of persons other than the Plaintiffs, and that the payment order for which the Plaintiffs filed against H was finalized on December 27, 2017 (the same as the claim amount of this case) it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiffs received the unpaid wage from H.

[In contrast to Article 44 of the Labor Standards Act requiring a cause attributable to an immediate contractor, joint and several liability under Article 44-2 of the same Act is recognized regardless of whether a immediately preceding contractor has paid the construction price to a subcontractor (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2013Hun-Ga12, Apr. 24, 2014). Accordingly, the claim in this case is acceptable for reasons.