The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment of the first instance.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Upon C’s request, the Plaintiff was dispatched to the construction site of the D Building from April 7, 2017 to April 28, 2017 (hereinafter “instant construction site”) and was paid KRW 5,712,000.

B. From April 29, 2017 to the same year upon the request of the defendant who succeeded to the status of the party to the contract for the dispatch of workers from C.

7. By the 14th day of the above site, the worker was dispatched to the above site and the work confirmation was received from the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total labor cost of KRW 5,432,00 and delay damages for the worker dispatched to the plaintiff during the above period.

2. The following circumstances revealed in full view of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 5, 11, 12, and 1, and Eul evidence No. 5, i.e., the defendant's work certificate prepared by the plaintiff while dispatching a worker for day duty at the construction site of this case from May 26, 2017

7. The fact that he/she has signed as a confirmation agent in charge of work until 14. In light of the fact that he/she is found to have been in signature, but the name of the company in charge of the construction site or the construction project specified in the above work confirmation, the workers dispatched by the plaintiff seems to have engaged in the work of aesthetic and waterproofing work at the construction site conducted by the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. and the second year from March 31, 2017 to the same year.

7. In light of the fact that up to 14.14., an employee employed by the F Co., Ltd. and worked at the instant construction site, and the said company did not pay wages, the manager of the said company was punished for violating the Labor Standards Act, and the Defendant brought an action against the said company seeking payment of overdue wages, and the conclusion of the dispatch contract with the employees of the construction company who are not the construction company while dispatching workers at the construction site is contrary to the empirical rule.