1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) C Co., Ltd.: (a) around April 2017, upon entering into a subcontract; (b) around April 2017, it is deemed that C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) On August 11, 2017, D Co., Ltd. subcontracted the instant construction work to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and agreed to settle accounts with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) on the other hand, on August 11, 2017, the Defendant was subcontracted the instant construction work to D from C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s relationship 1) were F’s birth, and the Plaintiff was a person who was working as a human father with respect to the mold work during the instant construction work. (2) The Defendant deposited KRW 250,000,000 with the Plaintiff’s account on September 29, 2017, and KRW 26,350,000 on November 22, 2017, with the Plaintiff’s labor cost, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant’s summary of the Plaintiff’s claim does not pay the Defendant’s wages of KRW 408,863,590 to his employees, including the Plaintiff, from September 2017 to November 2017.

However, the Plaintiff received a delegation from other workers to claim the payment of wages, and agreed to distribute the wages of other workers to the Defendant upon receiving both payment.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 408,863,590 and delay damages.

3. Determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts that there exists an individual employment relationship between the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and other workers, against the Plaintiff’s assertion that “the self-employed and other workers have a direct employment relationship with the Defendant,” the Defendant asserts that “the self-employed and other workers merely subcontracted the instant mold to F, and the Plaintiff and other workers did not have a direct employment relationship with F’s employees.” 2) In light of the following circumstances, the entirety of the arguments are acknowledged in light of the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff and the other workers were considered as having a direct employment relationship with F’s employees; and (b) the written evidence Nos. 4, 1, and 1, 3, and 3: