1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 17,600,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from January 7, 2014.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the construction contract was concluded with the Defendant and completed the construction work, and sought payment of KRW 17,600,000 as the construction cost and the delay damages therefrom from the Defendant.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted that, on June 1, 2012, a subcontract for landscaping works as asserted by the Plaintiff was concluded with a limited liability company (hereinafter “Cheongfriendly Construction”) and a Cheongfriendly Construction was actually executed, and that it was not necessary to conclude double landscaping contracts with the Plaintiff separately, and that it was not possible for the Plaintiff to accept the Plaintiff’s request on the grounds that the contract for landscaping works was not concluded with the Plaintiff.

2. The following facts can be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3.

The plaintiff is engaged in landscaping business, etc. under the trade name of "C".

B. On May 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the head of the Suwon-gun E-Gun for a new E-construction work, and had F take charge of employment and labor management necessary for the construction work from the head of the field office.

On June 1, 2012, the defendant subcontracted landscaping construction among the above construction works, and the construction was suspended under the condition that the construction was completed only a part of the landscaping work.

C. Accordingly, F, on a daily basis, employed a man-child and continued landscaping work. Among them, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff entered into a contract between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to continue the remainder of landscaping work at the construction site.

The Plaintiff completed the remainder landscaping work by bringing 17,600,000 won from June 2013 to July 2013.

The defendant representative G is in violation of the Labor Standards Act on the ground that the fact that F entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff, etc. employed by the defendant on behalf of the defendant was not paid wages to the plaintiff, etc.