1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence examined in the court of first instance shows the evidence presented in the records, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the judgment of the court of first instance, and it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff: 1) New Chang Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “original”).

(2) The Defendant ordered the construction work to the non-party company in sequential order, and the non-party company and the non-party company agreed to jointly assume the responsibility for any damage incurred at the construction site, and the Defendant’s subcontracting all of the contracted construction work from the original office to the non-party company is obviously illegal. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a contract for work directly to the non-party company. Meanwhile, the Defendant introduced workers from the non-party company and entered into a direct employment contract with the non-party company, and then received work from the relevant worker. The Defendant, who is the directly contractor under Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act, is jointly and severally and severally liable to pay the non-party company’s wages to the non-party company that is the subcontractor and the non-party company that is the non-party company, and therefore, the Defendant

B. In light of the Plaintiff’s own assertion, the money claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant is “wages” from the relevant employee’s standpoint, and from the Plaintiff’s standpoint, it is “service charges” (prestigious document dated July 18, 2018), and if the Plaintiff claims the “wages” of the relevant employee on behalf of the Plaintiff, the money is submitted by the Plaintiff.