A. G (State) in which the defendant is a representative director is a contract for work with E (State) other than B, and E (State) gives a subcontract to B, so the defendant is not a direct contractor.

In addition, the Defendant was unaware of whether E was a subcontractor who is not a construction business operator under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

Moreover, as the Defendant has already paid the subcontract price in full to E (ju), it cannot be seen that the Defendant is jointly and severally liable under Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the record on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, G (ju) in which the defendant is the representative director is deemed to have entered into a contract for work with E (ju), not B. However, even if the defendant has given a contract to E (ju), E (ju) has given a subcontract to B, and even if B has employed employees, Article 4-2 (2) of the Labor Standards Act provides that if a direct contractor under Article 44-2 (1) of the same Act is not a construction contractor under Article 2 (7) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, if the direct contractor under Article 2 (1) of the same Act is not a construction contractor under Article 2 (7) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, the construction contractor under Article 2 (1) of the same Act shall be deemed to be an immediate contractor. The fact that B and E (ju) are not a construction contractor under Article 2 (7) of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and therefore, the defendant's obligation to pay wages is not a direct contractor.