1. The defendant attached Form to the plaintiffs

b. The amount in arrears as stated in the Schedule shall be the amount in arrears and related thereto from November 21, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, as a constructor under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, contracted a new AI store construction project in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AH from the lot Construction Co., Ltd., and subcontracted the instant construction project to AJ as an individual constructor.

B. From May 1, 2015 to November 6, 2015, the Plaintiffs were employed by AJ and provided labor at the construction site of this case, and from AJ, the Plaintiffs provided labor.

b. The overdue balance column has not been paid wages equivalent to the amount in arrears as stated; and

[Reasons for Recognition] 1-1, 2, 1-2, 1-2, 3-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

(a) Where a construction business is conducted on two or more occasions a contract under subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (a contract under which the other party agrees to complete construction works regardless of names, such as a prime contract, subcontract, entrustment, etc., and the other party agrees to pay the price for the result of the construction works), if a subcontractor who is not a constructor under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (a person who conducts construction business after making a registration, etc. under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry or other Acts) fails to pay wages to his/her employees, an immediate upper tier contractor shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of wages to workers employed by the subcontractor (Article 44-2(1) of the Labor Standards Act) and Article 44-2(1) of the Labor Standards Act and where a direct contractor under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry is not

According to the above facts, the construction of this case has been conducted two or more contracts for construction business, and the defendant is a constructor under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and the AJ is not a constructor under Article 2 subparagraph 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry. Thus, the defendant, who is a direct contractor of AJ, is the defendant