A. The selective charges No. 1, even if the instant workers, such as C, concluded a labor contract with D, in light of the fact that the Defendant directly drafted a letter of payment and a written consent for direct payment to C, etc., the Defendant may be deemed to be “employer” as stipulated in the main sentence of Article 36 of the Labor Standards Act.

B. The letter of the instant payment and the written consent of the direct payment of the charges No. 2 are that the Defendant would pay wages directly to the instant workers, such as C, along with D, according to their respective ratio. The total construction cost of the instant case is KRW 380,000,000 that the Defendant actually paid to D is merely KRW 46,000,000,000, and in light of this, the Defendant appears to have paid only part of the labor cost to D.

Therefore, there are reasons for the defendant to return to the Article 24 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act.

2. Determination

A. The following facts are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the selective charges No. 1: (i) D stated that the construction of this case was subcontracted by the Defendant at the court below; (ii) the actual Defendant and D exist; and (iii) C also stated that the construction of this case was subcontracted by the Defendant; and (iv) although each payment and direct payment agreement exist, it is the purport that the Defendant, who is the recipient, bears the obligation to pay the unpaid wages directly in relation to the workers of this case, and the above circumstance alone is difficult to regard the Defendant as the employer or the business manager under the Labor Standards Act and the person acting on behalf of the business owner.