beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 8,570,00 for the Plaintiff (Appointed Party); (b) KRW 525,00 for the appointed Party C; and (c) KRW 1,100,000 for the appointed Party D.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The lower court awarded a contract to the Defendant for the production and installation work of the shooting days (hereinafter “instant construction”). On November 7, 2011, the Defendant re-subcontracted the instant construction work with the construction cost of KRW 380,000,000 and the construction period from November 7, 2011 to January 31, 201.
B. The Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) and the designated parties indicated in the separate sheet of the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff, etc.”) were mentioned in the list of the designated parties, and the designated parties indicated in the separate sheet of the Plaintiff and the separate sheet of the designated parties (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) were engaged in the instant construction site from February 27, 2012 to April 5, 2012, such as melting and cutting, attaching external reinforcements, etc., but did not receive any wage set forth in the main sentence of
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' arguments and the judgment on them
A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) at the construction site of this case provided labor upon being under the defendant's direction and supervision. However, the plaintiff's assertion did not receive each wage as stated in paragraph (1) of this case.
(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the construction was under way due to lack of human resources, and the Defendant requested the Defendant to provide human resources support. The Defendant introduced the Plaintiff, etc. to the Hantech, and the Plaintiff, etc. provided labor under the direction and supervision of the Hantech at the construction site of this case. Thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff, etc
B. In full view of the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2, the Defendant further subcontracted the instant construction work to Hantech, but there was no indication that Hantech is a subcontractor at the construction site of this case, and the Plaintiff was paid part of the subcontract price even if Hantech was paid.