1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion is a personal entrepreneur who operates an employment brokerage business under the trade name of C, and when concluding a human resources supply contract with a business partner such as a construction site, the plaintiff was engaged in the business in a way that the worker recruited workers and paid personnel expenses in advance to the site and received labor expenses from the business partner collectively.

The defendant was engaged in the business of collecting labor costs from customers as the plaintiff's employee.

The Plaintiff traded between January 2013 and July 27, 2013 with the construction of infant (hereinafter referred to as “child construction”) and the construction of infant from January 2013 to July 2013. The Defendant received from the construction of infant to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 95,734,875 won of labor cost from other accounts than the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant traded with the Plaintiff in the same manner as above, the Defendant received 450,000 won of labor cost for the day of January 30, 2013 from the D Company as the Defendant’s name, and received KRW 2,250,000 from the March 16, 2013 to March 27, 2013, but did not pay the remainder of KRW 3,224,2875.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return 3,224,875 won, which was not paid by the Defendant from the Plaintiff’s business partners, to the Plaintiff, as unjust enrichment.

2. In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was an employee of the Plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2 and 6 as a whole.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant is obligated to return all the money received from the infant construction, D company, and E company to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit. A.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had worked as the Plaintiff’s employee from January 2013, but even if the Defendant used the position as the Vice-President of the Company and used the credit card issued by the Plaintiff, the Defendant.