1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C’s KRW 11,00,000 and for this, KRW 6% per annum from June 16, 2015 to November 1, 2016.

1. Claim against the defendant company

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that, in accordance with Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act, Defendant C, the subcontractor, was unable to pay wages to the Plaintiff, who is an employee employed by the subcontractor, the Defendant Company, who is the immediate contractor, should jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff the unpaid wages of KRW 11 million to the Plaintiff.

(2) According to the evidence No. 3, Defendant C’s delivery to the Plaintiff of the agreement to the effect that “the Defendant Company will pay the Plaintiff the labor cost of KRW 1.57 million in the Gangnam-gu E construction site and the labor cost of KRW 1.1 million in the construction site in Cheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul, and that the Plaintiff received KRW 1.57 million out of the said money.”

In light of this, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff’s 1.1 million won, seeking in this case, is the personnel expenses of the Cheongbuk-gun Construction Site. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone, which the Defendant Company contracted to Defendant C for the construction site of the Cheongbuk-gun Construction Site, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the defendant company is the defendant C's direct contractor for the above construction site is without merit.

B. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the judgment on the conjunctive claim (1) responsibility of the representative director or the assertion on the representative of expression under Article 125 of the Civil Code is liable for the representative director or the plaintiff on the assertion on the representative of expression under Article 125 of the Civil Code, since the defendant C introduced himself as the vice president of the defendant corporation and entered into a human resources supply contract with the plaintiff in the name of the defendant corporation, and the defendant C consented or impliedly consented to use the position that he is the vice president, the defendant corporation is liable for the representative of expression under Article 395

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is that the defendant company is the vice president against the defendant C.