2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The plaintiff alleged in the first instance court that the defendant entered into a contract with the defendant to receive a contract for construction related to steel processing and assembly (hereinafter "the construction of this case") among the construction of new urban residential housing in the Namnam-gu, and that the defendant did not pay labor expenses incurred from the construction of this case to the plaintiff despite the execution of the construction of this case under the above contract, but provided labor after entering into an agreement with the defendant to provide labor, etc., but even though C was paid construction expenses by the defendant, although C was not paid by the defendant, it did not pay wages to the plaintiff and the defendant did not perform the promise to pay the unpaid wages, etc. after the discontinuance of the construction work. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the price of the above payment promise or the construction of this case as a direct contractor who contracted the construction of this case to C.

B. Determination 1) First of all, comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including paper numbers), Eul's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant entered into a contract with Eul around March 2016 to contract the construction of reinforced concrete among the urban-type residential housing construction works, and Eul re-subcontracted the construction of reinforced concrete to the plaintiff around April 2016. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff labor cost, etc. for the construction of this case directly to the plaintiff. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. 2) Furthermore, as to whether the defendant ordered the construction of this case to a direct contractor who contracted the construction of this case to Eul and had not been paid by the plaintiff, Article 44(1) of the Labor Standards Act is examined.