노임
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant is a company that operates the aesthetic design, waterproof construction business, etc.
B. The Plaintiffs are from April 28, 2017, at the construction site of the apartment in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and at the construction site of the apartment in Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, the Defendant performed.
8. By March 31, 200, waterproof Construction was carried out (hereinafter “instant construction”).
C. Until now, Plaintiff A did not receive wages of KRW 7,450,000, and KRW 3,600,000 for Plaintiff B.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiffs asserted that they agreed to the FF directors and wages of the defendant company, and completed the instant construction work according to F's direction.
The defendant has paid the construction wage of this case to the plaintiff A.
Therefore, the defendant shall pay the unpaid wage under the employment contract to the plaintiff, and even if the defendant does not directly employ the plaintiffs, he is liable as the nominal lender.
B. The Defendant asserted that the instant construction was subcontracted to F and did not directly employ the Plaintiffs upon entering into a subcontract with F and the Defendant paid F all the construction cost of the instant case.
3. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, the defendant is deemed to have a duty to pay the plaintiffs unpaid wages related to the instant construction work.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are justified, and the defendant's assertion is not accepted.
A. The Plaintiffs received daily allowances at the construction site of the instant case and performed waterproof construction works for about four months.
The Plaintiffs were to work at the construction site of this case through F, and there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiffs concluded a direct employment contract with F, and instead, F issued the above name cards to the Plaintiffs when using the name cards “(State) C Director F.”
The address mentioned above is the defendant.