1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant against the plaintiff B in excess of the amount ordered below.

Facts of recognition

The defendant is a constructor registered pursuant to the Framework Act on the Construction Industry.

Around January 2016, the Defendant was awarded a contract for construction of a multi-household house on the Fran City F from E, and subcontracted the sanitary facility work among the above construction to D.

Plaintiff

A and B were employed by D and provided labor at the site of the above sanitary facility works.

Plaintiff

A was unable to receive wages of KRW 3,680,00 from April 1, 2016 to June 23, 2016; and Plaintiff B did not receive wages of KRW 5,750,000 from March 13, 2016 to June 23, 2016.

Plaintiff

B received 4,000,000 won from the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation as substitute payment on November 22, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiffs asserted that Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings were not paid wages from Eul, an employer. The plaintiffs claim that Eul and the plaintiffs jointly pay wages that have not been paid.

The defendant did not have employed the plaintiffs and paid all sanitary facility costs to D who are subcontractors, so there is no obligation to pay wages to the plaintiffs.

Judgment

According to Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act, where a construction business is contracted on two or more occasions, if a subcontractor who is not a constructor registered under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, etc. fails to pay wages to his/her workers, an immediate upper-tier contractor who is the constructor shall be jointly and severally liable to pay wages to workers

In addition, these circumstances the Defendant paid the subcontract price to D.

The same shall also apply to the case.

According to the above facts, the defendant, as a contractor of D's direct contractor, registered under the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, is jointly and severally with D, the subcontractor, and the defendant, as the subcontractor, deducts the plaintiff A from the wages of 3,680,000 and the substitute payment of 1,750,000 = 5.