1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff performed the instant construction work (hereinafter “instant construction”).

The Plaintiff paid KRW 16,51,030,00, total of KRW 3,914,60 on July 29, 2015, KRW 3,359,290 on August 31, 2015, KRW 4,032,120 on September 21, 2015, KRW 13,131,680 on October 23, 2015, and KRW 16,51,030 on November 16, 2015.

B. The Defendant, as above, remitted the amount of KRW 3,00,000 on July 29, 2015, and KRW 3,000,00 on August 31, 2015, KRW 3,000,00 on September 21, 2015, KRW 3,732,120 on September 23, 2015, and KRW 831,680 on October 23, 2015, and KRW 1,73,340 on November 16, 2015, respectively.

C. Meanwhile, as between July 31, 2015 and October 29, 2015, the Defendant used the physical check card in the name of the Defendant in the innate City or in the Tong Young-si.

The Plaintiff filed a complaint under suspicion that C was paid KRW 16,511,030 for the wage of the Plaintiff, even though the Defendant conspired with C and did not actually provide labor at the construction site of this case. However, on May 2, 2017, the Defendant was subject to a non-prosecution disposition by the Seo-gu District Public Prosecutor’s Office without suspicion.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 9, Eul evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The employees who worked at the construction site of this case did not know the defendant, and the defendant reversed their statements on several occasions about the duties performed at the construction site of this case.

When the defendant receives the wage from the plaintiff, he transferred the remaining money after deducting 300,000 won from the substitute to C, the head of the field office.

In addition, even though most workers who participated in the instant construction work lived in a lodging facility near the instant construction site, the Defendant used physical cards in the name of the Defendant during the construction period of the instant construction work.

B. In light of the above circumstances, the defendant is actually the defendant of this case.