beta
Text
1. The part against the defendant A in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the following determination as to the claim for reimbursement against Defendant A, and therefore, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. As to the claim for reimbursement against Defendant A, Defendant A asserted that even if he is the joint contractor of the instant repair work contract, Defendant A did not bear the duty of reimbursement for the labor cost paid by the Plaintiff to the employees of Defendant B who did not have the duty of payment of wages, and this is examined.
In full view of the following circumstances, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 10, 12, and 23, the entire arguments, and the following facts revealed by the purport of the whole arguments, namely, workers Eul, etc., who were employed on behalf of the plaintiff for the repair work of this case under the work order of the defendant Eul, and the wage was transferred from the defendant Eul's account, but the defendant Gap did not have any time during the above construction work, but the defendant Eul did not have any time during the above construction work, and upon the delayed payment of the wage, the plaintiff paid the overdue wage after the request for the payment of the wage to the defendant Eul, and the confirmation document that "the plaintiff was paid the wages from the plaintiff who was the original recipient due to the delayed payment of the wage of the defendant Eul, but the plaintiff was paid the wages from the plaintiff who was the original recipient of the above repair work of this case, it is difficult to view that the plaintiff paid the wages on behalf of the defendant Eul as the employee employed by the defendant Eul, and there is no obligation to pay the wages to the defendant Eul.
Therefore, the claim for the reimbursement of this case against Defendant A on the premise that Defendant A was liable to pay wages to the employees on behalf of the Plaintiff is not reasonable.
3. Conclusion, the court of first instance.