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 assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff engaged in the business of supplying and arranging human resources in the name of “C”, and that the Defendant, upon requesting the Plaintiff to dispatch workers in daily work, entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff shall settle the payment of the preferential wage at the time of the Plaintiff’s payment.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). From February 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff dispatched a worker on duty at the Defendant’s construction site from February 1, 2016 to June 30, 2016, and the total amount of the wages reaches KRW 15,640,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 15,640,000 won and damages for delay.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the following circumstances are merely acknowledged, and unlike others, there is no evidence to acknowledge the instant agreement, as alleged by the Plaintiff, such as that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to dispatch a worker on duty after settling a direct later wage. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

① The attached wage claim that the Plaintiff sent a document proving the content of demanding the payment of wages (Evidence A 1) to the Defendant, stating the details of wages that correspond to the Plaintiff’s assertion. However, this is a document prepared by the Plaintiff, which is written by the Plaintiff, and is written by a non-defendant company as the opposite contractual party.

② Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant, at the time, requested the Plaintiff to dispatch a worker on daily basis while delivering the name of the chief of the business division (Evidence A 2) of the D Company. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant concluded the instant agreement on the premise that the Defendant would individually settle and pay the wage to the Plaintiff.

③ Part of the work confirmation (Evidence No. 3-1 through 26) issued by the Plaintiff’s “C” is “person in charge of field responsibility” and the Defendant’s name is indicated. However, the evidence No. 7-1 through No. 4 is indicated.