1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant, together with F and G, ordered H and four parcels reinforcements (hereinafter “instant construction”).

B. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) provided labor to the instant construction from April 16, 2012 to June 30, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff et al. asserted by the parties have to bear all the costs of the construction of this case, such as direct remuneration, accommodation, etc., and have been ordered by the defendant, and thus, the plaintiff et al. sought wages from the defendant.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the construction of this case was awarded a contract to UNC Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "NF") and paid all the construction cost accordingly, and that there was no direct labor contract with the plaintiff et al.

B. As to whether there was a labor contract agreement between the Plaintiff, etc. and the Defendant, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Rather, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the descriptions of evidence Nos. 5 and Nos. 1 through 6, the Defendant, along with F and G, contracted the instant construction to the non-party company around May 14, 2012, and the Plaintiff, etc. received part of wages from the non-party company around May 14, 2012. The Suwon District Court 2014Kadan2695 against the non-party company as the claim claim against the non-party company, attached the claim against the non-party company for the construction payment of this case to the non-party company under the Suwon District Court 2014Kadan2695. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, etc., etc. was deemed to have provided labor to the non-party company. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, etc.’s assertion based on the premise that the labor contract had existed between the Plaintiff, etc. and the defendant, etc. is without merit

3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.