1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,00,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from October 3, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. From around 2012, C operated a household production company at the Defendant’s factory located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and the Defendant had the aforementioned factory at the Kimpo-si before August 5, 2016, and around August 5, 2016, the above factory was changed to the Defendant’s domicile at the Defendant’s head office.

B. The Plaintiff worked in the foregoing plant from February 15, 2015 to September 18, 2015, but did not receive total of KRW 15,00,000,000.

C. With respect to the case of delayed payment of wages to workers (including the plaintiff) who provided labor to the above household manufacturing business, the letter of confirmation of the employer's overdue wages, etc. issued by the director of the vice branch office of the Jung-gu Regional Employment and Labor Agency is indicated as "the name of business: corporation E, actual representative: C, and representative: F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The employer who employs the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Defendant.

Even if it is not so, the defendant allowed C to use his name and operate his business, and the plaintiff provided his work by misunderstanding the defendant as the owner of the business, so the defendant bears the responsibility as the name holder or the expression manager under Article 14 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 15,000,000 and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's employer is not the defendant but C.

In addition, C is merely a contractor who produces and supplies a household by leasing part of the defendant Kimpo Branch, and there is no way that the defendant lends the name to C or permits the use of the name of the manager.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to pay wages to the plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. In full view of whether the Defendant is an actual employer against the Plaintiff, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 5, the Defendant’s representative director is not F in relation to overdue wages, etc.