1. The defendant expressed his intent to employ the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant: (a) KRW 4,108,928 on the Plaintiff and its relation thereto.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant, as a company aimed at civil engineering, construction, housing construction, overseas comprehensive construction business, etc., concluded a contract on temporary placement with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) from around 2010 to 2012, had C-related workers engage in driving duties for the Defendant’s executives, driving duties for empty vehicles, and driving duties for commuting buses. From around 2012 to around 2012, the Defendant concluded a contract with D (hereinafter “D”) and entrusted the said driving duties by extending the contract or entering into a contract with the same content.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract” without distinguishing the year between the Defendant and D.

From July 6, 2010 to January 2012, the Plaintiff was engaged in the Defendant’s operation of an empty driver, from February 2012 to December 31, 2016, and from February 31, 2012 to December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff’s affiliated company was changed as indicated below.

On December 31, 2016, the Plaintiff retired from D.

On July 6, 2012, July 5, 2012, D on July 1, 2012, 2013, Defendant 1, October 31, 2013, 2014, on October 31, 2014, / [based on recognition] unsatisfy, Party A’s 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 2 (including all of the serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings, on July 30, 2012, each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings, on October 31, 2014, 2014.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff: (a) entered into an employment contract with C and D; (b) provided the Defendant with a temporary agency contract concluded between C and the Defendant; or (c) provided a driving service under the instant contract concluded between D and the Defendant; (c) the substance of the contract constitutes a temporary agency work relationship. Ultimately, the Defendant, the user company, continued to use the Plaintiff as the temporary agency worker for more than two years. The Act on the Protection, etc. of Temporary Agency Workers (hereinafter

Article 6-2 (1).