2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Defendant subcontracted on March 1, 2016 the construction of the publicity center of the regional housing association B to C, which is an unregistered constructor, after being awarded a contract for the construction of the publicity center of the regional housing association.

B. From March 2, 2016 to March 19, 2016, the Plaintiff provided labor on the construction site, which was not paid wages from C, and the unpaid wages are KRW 2,400,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 (including additional numbers), Eul 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Article 44-2(1) of the Labor Standards Act provides that “Where a construction project has been carried out on two or more occasions, and a subcontractor who is not a constructor under Article 2(11) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry fails to pay wages to his/her employees, in cases where the construction project has been carried out on two or more occasions, the immediate upper-tier contractor shall be jointly and severally liable with the subcontractor to pay wages to workers employed by the subcontractor.”

According to the facts established earlier, C was awarded a contract for the part of the internal wood construction from March 2, 2016 to March 19, 2016, and was provided with labor by the Plaintiff. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to C wages of KRW 2,400,00 to the Plaintiff as a direct contractor, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Labor Standards Act, from April 3, 2016 to the date of full payment, as requested by the Plaintiff, as the direct contractor, after the 14th day after the date of the provision of the final labor as sought by the Plaintiff.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that since D et al. concluded a subcontract with C by stealing the corporate sense of the defendant, the defendant has no obligation to pay wages as a direct contractor.

However, each of the evidence of Nos. 5 to 9.