1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and C concluded a labor contract (hereinafter “instant labor contract”) with the Defendant to work in the E-Fresh storage facility site (hereinafter “instant construction site”) located in Jung-gu Incheon, Jung-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “D”), and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 170,000 per day, and KRW 100,000 per day, and KRW 3,30,000 per day, respectively. The Plaintiff acquired the Defendant’s overdue wage from C. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 17,416,50,000, which remains after deducting KRW 3610,000 per day.

B. The defendant's assertion only lent the defendant's passbook to the deceased F (hereinafter "the deceased") who was a bad credit holder, and there was no direct employment contract between the plaintiff and C.

As the Plaintiff and C provided work knowing that they are business owners, the deceased, not the Defendant, shall bear the obligation to pay wages, etc.

2. The identity of the party to the sales contract is a matter of interpretation of the intention of the party involved in the contract.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da4471, Nov. 29, 2012). Interpretation of a declaration of intent is clearly establishing the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of expressing intent. In other words, in relation to the determination of a contracting party, if both parties agree, the parties to the contract should be determined according to the agreed intent. If both parties fail to agree, a reasonable person should be determined based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, such as the nature, content, purpose, and circumstance of the contract.

Supreme Court Decision 97Da22089 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.