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

purport, purport, and.

A. The plaintiffs asserted that they were employed by the defendant and provided labor at the site of the construction of the indoor fishing place in the building for the steel structure of Pyeongtaek-si E (hereinafter "the instant construction") and sought payment of unpaid wages. As to this, the defendant entered into a contract with the plaintiff A with the plaintiff for the construction of the instant construction work at the contract interval of KRW 40 million, and the defendant paid the total amount of KRW 26 million as the construction cost based on the flag because the construction has not been completed. The defendant did not comply with the plaintiffs' claim because it is not in an employment relationship with the plaintiffs.

B. Therefore, we first examine whether the employment relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendant has been established.

The following circumstances acknowledged as a whole in light of the purport of the argument in the statement Nos. 2 and 4, and the defendant asserted that the construction contract was concluded orally with the plaintiff Gap, but it is difficult to obtain a hot water that the contract was made for construction work of a considerable amount of construction work up to 40 million won without drawing up the construction contract document. ② The plaintiff Eul and C provided labor to the plaintiff Eul through the plaintiff. However, while the defendant, while carrying out the construction of this case, he provided the necessary materials for the construction of this case by the plaintiff Eul who operated the business of selling plastic farming materials from the plaintiff who operated the business of selling plastic farming materials to settle the price of the materials at any time, while he provided the plaintiff Eul with a comprehensive power of attorney regarding the supply and demand of human resources and construction of the construction of this case, and the plaintiff Eul appears to have concluded an employment contract with the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant. ③ If the defendant contracted the construction of this case to the plaintiff, it is natural that the plaintiff's father is liable for meals.