1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and counterclaims filed by this court are dismissed.

2. Appeal costs and counterclaims; and

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is the executor of the construction project of the Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the non-party D (hereinafter “D”) is the contractor of the construction project of the above C, and the Plaintiff was engaged in the human resources service business of E with the trade name of E and dispatched cleaning and arranging human resources at the construction site of the above C pursuant to the contract with D.

B. On June 18, 2018, the Defendant paid KRW 27,212,80 to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “The amount of the instant payment”). C.

D On June 20, 2018, the Defendant received a demand for direct payment of wages and a written consent from the Defendant to the Plaintiff with the following content:

(hereinafter referred to as “instant written consent”). The Plaintiff received a written consent from the Plaintiff through D.

A person who requested a direct payment of wages and a written consent: D above person who requested a direct payment of wages: (a) agrees to pay E the wages to be paid out of the wages arising in C from B to E and then requests B to pay E in office.

The date and time: On June 20, 2018, the holder of the right to demand the direct payment of the output wage (a claim after the end of each month): He confirms that B(Defendant) will accept the request of the person who requested the right to demand the direct payment, and that he will be responsible and paid in E.

C. The sum of wages for the human resources dispatched to the above construction site from August 24, 2018 after the Plaintiff drafted a written consent to the direct payment of the position in this case is KRW 11,840,00.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. While the Plaintiff was unable to receive the wages for dispatched personnel from Plaintiff D from time to time, it is the amount of the instant payment that the Plaintiff paid the output wages unpaid to the Plaintiff through consultation between Plaintiff and the Defendant.

In other words, the amount of the instant payment is the wage for the dispatched human resources before June 20, 2018, and the subsequent wage is not received.

The Defendant’s wages for the human resources dispatched by the Plaintiff after June 20, 2018, according to the written consent to the instant direct payment.