1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,400,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around June 2013, the Defendant, who operated C, was awarded a subcontract for the roof construction work among the new construction works of private housing located in the Gangseo-si, which was executed by D representative E (hereinafter “instant construction work”) at KRW 22 million for the construction cost.

B. Upon receiving the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff carried out a roof work at the construction site of the instant construction site with G, and G felled at a height of approximately two meters during the work site on June 29, 2013, and received hospitalized treatment, etc. at the Gangnamsan Hospital and the Egynsan Bridge Hospital, etc., by suffering from the injury.

C. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff received a transfer of KRW 5 million from the Defendant, and remitted KRW 3.5 million among them to G on August 1, 2013, which is the following day, and the remaining KRW 1.5 million was remitted to the Defendant on August 19, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 4-1, 2, 3, and 1 of Evidence Nos. 4-1, 3, and 1, E’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the Defendant’s request, the Plaintiff provided 200,000 won per day at the construction site of this case with labor for 7 days, and the Defendant did not pay 1.4 million won per day (200,000 won/day x 7 days) and thus, sought payment.

(A) On July 31, 2013, the Defendant asserts that he re-subcontracted the portion of the instant construction work that he subcontracted from E to the Plaintiff for construction cost of KRW 3.5 million, and that on July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the said construction cost in full as part of the KRW 5 million transferred to the Plaintiff).

According to the conjunctive argument by the defendant, even if the plaintiff received sub-subcontracts from the defendant, it was not paid at all, and thus, it is claimed that the above 1.4 million won should be paid as the construction cost.

3. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had been employed on the job site of this case by being paid daily allowances with the Defendant solely on the basis of each description of Gap evidence No. 2-1 and No. 3 with respect to the primary claim, and it is otherwise recognized.