Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

A. With respect to the manufacturing and installation of steel structure on the land owned by Nonparty C, which was requested by the Defendant around December 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that the main argument of the parties is as follows.

1) On January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid personnel expenses directly by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff was the head of the Working Group up to January 25, 2017. The Defendant was subject to a disposition on August 3, 2017, where the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on the charge of fraud, including personnel expenses of KRW 24,789,00 (the amount claimed) and other cases where the Plaintiff had been paid personnel expenses from the owner, and the Defendant was subject to a disposition on August 3, 2017. According to the notice of the reason for non-prosecution (Evidence evidence B), the Plaintiff stated that the Plaintiff was the unpaid wages of KRW 20 million at an investigative agency. In addition, the Plaintiff appealed the unpaid labor expenses of KRW 4 million among the judgment of the first instance court, and the Plaintiff did not pay the unpaid labor expenses. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the amount of unpaid labor expenses is not clear. 2) The Defendant subcontracted the said construction to the Plaintiff.

(A) The Defendant stated that the production of steel structure itself is about 60% and about 15% if it is included in the installation process, and that the investigation agency is about 35% of the total construction process. The construction was completed.) If the Defendant’s pre-paid personnel expenses and steel materials supplied by the Defendant include the Plaintiff’s disposal of the steel materials and the collection of the said expenses as personnel expenses, there is no personnel expenses to be additionally paid by the Defendant.

B. First of all, the contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is not clear.

Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was a party who was paid the total labor cost from the defendant, including the labor cost of human beings, apart from the origin of the above construction work, as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, according to the statement No. 1, the statement of No. 1 is followed.