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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates a human resources supplier company that supplies workers at a construction site, etc. under the trade name of “B”.

B. The Defendant is a company that implemented the new construction of ground neighborhood living facilities in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant construction”).

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and Evidence No. 1]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. Upon the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff dispatched his/her employees from December 26, 2013 to February 4, 2014 at the construction site of this case. The Plaintiff’s labor cost for the employees during the said period is KRW 14,90,000.

The Defendant is obligated to pay the above labor cost as a party to the instant contract on temporary placement of workers, and if the Defendant is not the party requesting the temporary placement of workers, it is jointly and severally liable to pay the above labor cost to the subcontractor and the Plaintiff pursuant to Articles 44 and 44-

B. (1) First, as to whether the Defendant requested to dispatch workers at the construction site of this case and paid wages to the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize the health class, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and Eul’s testimony, the defendant, as the person ordering the instant construction work, contracted the instant construction work with the price of KRW 427,00,000 on August 1, 2013 as the owner of the instant construction work (hereinafter “Cop Construction”) by setting the construction cost of KRW 427,00,000. ② Cop Construction subcontracted the instant construction work to D on October 20, 2013, with the payment of construction cost of KRW 98,00,00, which was set as KRW 98,000 among the instant construction work; ③ The fact that D requested the Plaintiff to dispatch workers, such as wood, at the construction site of this case through C, etc., is recognized, and this part of the argument premised on the premise that D is a party to the instant construction is without merit.

(2) Article 44 and 44 of the Labor Standards Act are as follows.