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

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a restaurant under the trade name of “D” in the Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Jeonjin-gu, and the Defendant is a person who runs a construction business, such as tin construction, with the trade name of “E”.

B. On April 10, 2015, the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the Busan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Bong Construction”) with respect to the construction of the teaininin Tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the instant construction”) from April 10, 2015 to July 30, 2015, with respect to the construction period from April 10, 2015 to July 30, 2015, the contract amount of which is KRW 160,000.

C. From September 2015 to October 2015, the Plaintiff provided meals to the directors G and workers employed by E from September 2015 to October 2015. The price is KRW 5,520,900 (hereinafter “instant meal cost”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The instant meal costs are meal costs provided to the employees employed by the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay meal costs and discontinued the instant construction work on October 2015. The Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff the instant meal costs by December 10, 2015. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant meal costs and the damages for delay from December 11, 2015 to the Defendant and the secondary construction departments, the contract period between the Defendant and the secondary construction departments ends on July 30, 2015, and thus, the Defendant was not related to the instant construction work, but was introduced by G for the purpose of carrying out the construction work at the request of the secondary construction, but was directly engaged in the construction work.

The defendant paid labor costs, food expenses, etc. incurred after the termination of the contract directly or remitted them to G upon G's request. Since the meal costs of this case are irrelevant to the defendant, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier.