1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 300,000 per day from November 1, 2017, under employment of the Defendant who conducts construction business, etc. through the introduction of the human resources company, and agreed to obtain KRW 300,000 per day, and performed a toilet work among the remodeling of the facilities near the wife C (hereinafter “instant construction”).

On November 8, 2017, the toilet Typian Corporation continued to be paid for a total of eight days until November 8, 2017. The plaintiff was paid three-day wages from the defendant, but was not paid for the remaining five-day wages.

On December 12, 2018, the Defendant received a summary order of KRW 300,00,000 from November 1, 2017 to November 8, 2017, on the criminal facts that “the Plaintiff, who worked for the Defendant from November 1, 2017 to November 8, 2017, did not pay KRW 1,50,000 to the Plaintiff within 14 days from the date of retirement without an agreement on the extension of the due date between the parties.” Accordingly, the said summary order became final and conclusive as it did not

(2) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated by the Labor Standards Act from November 23, 2017 to the date of full payment, according to the above-mentioned facts finding as to the following facts: (a) there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) evidence Nos. 1, 1, 201485; (c) evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2000; (d) the fact-finding of the fact-finding of this court; and (e) the purport of the entire pleadings; and (e) the purport of the entire pleadings.

The Defendant’s assertion and its determination on the Defendant’s assertion were the first argument that he had been performing the instant construction work on August 2017, 2017, and the Defendant heard that he would directly engage in the instant construction work from D’s denying E, a commercial owner, and D’s owner and ordering person, excludes the Plaintiff from the construction cost, and introduces the Plaintiff to E, and that E directly issued a work order to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is not the employer who has employed the Plaintiff.

The second argument is that the original three-day construction period for the other works.