임금
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties against the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.
1. The following facts are acknowledged as either a dispute between the parties or in full view of the evidence set forth in subparagraphs A(1) through (11) and the purport of the entire pleadings.
A. Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) is the starting work of the construction work of the new apartment at racing-si.
On July 26, 2016, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) was subcontracted on July 31, 2018 with construction cost of KRW 1,620,00,000, and on July 31, 2018.
B. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties worked at the construction site of this case from September 2016 to June 2017.
C. From October 13, 2016 to June 15, 2017, Defendant B deposited money from the account of himself or Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) to the account of the designated parties, under the pretext of daily labor cost.
The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) is not a constructor under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties asserted that they were employed by Defendant B, and performed work at the construction site of this case from June 2016 to July 2017, and did not receive the amount claimed as wages from Defendant B.
[In the case of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the amount included in the expense of KRW 1,936,560 in addition to the wage], and Defendant C is a company that cannot be deemed to have a legal personality separate from Defendant B.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act, Defendant D is an immediate contractor, and Defendant B and Defendant C are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount claimed to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointeds.
B. The Defendants’ assertion (appointed parties) and the designated parties do not work at the construction site of this case under employment by Defendant B.