beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked and above.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) received a supply of Dental Maintenance Work (hereinafter “instant construction work”) from the Gangwon-do Incheon National Park Corporation (Yansan Office) around June 201, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) were employed as a daily worker in C and provided labor at the site of the instant construction work, from May 2012.
B. On June 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff et al. sought awareness that C was insolvent and attempted to retire. However, C’s site manager E accepted the instant construction site from the Plaintiff et al. to the Plaintiff et al., and requested the Plaintiff et al. to change to the Defendant’s jurisdiction.
C. Around June 29, 2012, the Defendant and the Defendant entered into a subcontract with the construction cost of KRW 176,000,000 for panel works, etc. during the instant construction, and the construction period from June 29, 2012 to September 1, 2012, and reported this to the Seosan Office of the Korea National Park Service around the first half of July 2012.
On the other hand, although the representative director of the defendant was G, P on the corporate register, the representative director of C actually operated the defendant, and E continuously supervised and supervised the construction site of this case.
Since then, without any additional employee, the Plaintiff et al. took part in the subcontracted panel construction work by July 24, 2012, and the Plaintiff et al. retired from office on August 15, 2012 with the Appointed(Appointed) and the Appointed(Appointed), J, K, L, and N retired from office on August 6, 2012.
E. From July 1, 2012 to July 24, 2012, the amount of wages that the Plaintiff, etc. did not receive after the said panel was subcontracted to the said panel is as indicated in the attached Form.
F. He actually operated the Defendant, as an employer of the Plaintiff, etc., did not pay each wage indicated in the attached Table to the Plaintiff, etc., who is an employee of the Defendant.