1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts I Co., Ltd. is a contractor awarded a contract for construction work at Sejong City J. K Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “K”) with an I Co., Ltd. for the foregoing construction work (hereinafter “instant construction work”).

The defendant is a person who operates a private business chain dealing with building construction, interior works, building materials, etc.

The Plaintiffs are workers who worked at the construction site of the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is the head of the Ban who provides labor while taking 7-8 daily workers, and the defendant and theO working for the above N was known by entering into a subcontract for interior works from N managed by M.

around September 2016, Defendant andO lent K’s license to accept the instant construction work in the name of K, and Defendant andO had the Plaintiffs pay KRW 200,000 per day to the instant construction work.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were working on the instant construction site from September 26, 2016, but the Defendant paid only wages from September 26, 2016 to November 25, 2016, and the same year as from November 26, 2016 to January 8, 2017 (the remaining Plaintiffs 30 days excluding Plaintiff A).

1. up to 9. (Plaintiff A 31.5) Wages were not paid.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the wages stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiffs.

3. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4-6, the defendant informed the plaintiff A of the construction site address, asked the account number of the plaintiff A, and it can be acknowledged that the fact that the receipt was properly issued is legitimate, but the above macroscopic evidence and the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 4 are integrated into the whole purport of the pleadings, i.e., the plaintiff as the head of K K K's on-site, and i.e., the statement in the above macroscopic evidence and evidence No. 3.