A. The scope of the trial at this court held that the plaintiff primarily claimed the construction cost, the conjunctive wage and the custody money, and the court of the first instance dismissed the primary claim, and the claim of the wages among the conjunctive claims was accepted, and the claim of the custody money was dismissed.

As to this part of the conjunctive claim of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, since the defendant appealed against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the conjunctive claim.

B. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

C. The summary of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from May 201 to work. However, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the unpaid wages and delay damages (the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the unpaid wages and the unpaid wages and the unpaid damages for delay (the Plaintiff is KRW 44,828,940,000,000,000 to April 10, 2013,000 to April 11, 2013, and KRW 144,563,380,000,000 to August 27, 2017, and KRW 9,734,440,000,000,000 to April 10, 2013 to April 10, 2013 to April 10, 2013, and only the Plaintiff was entitled to return the unpaid wages to the Defendant, but the Plaintiff did not independently seek the additional payment under the Defendant’s name as follows.

Judgment

1. We examine whether the defendant has employed the plaintiff.

In full view of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, the defendant shall each month make the account in the name of the plaintiff.