1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 68,972,090 and shall pay to the plaintiff on March 2018.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the arguments by the parties is as follows: (a) the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (from the second to the third to the 18th class) is the same as that of the relevant part of the grounds of the judgment of the first instance (from the third to the third to the 18th class), and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 9, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, and 26 (including the serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's evidence Nos. 1, and the court of first instance's fact-finding with J of the court of first instance, according to the witness witness Eul's testimony and arguments in this court's whole purport, the defendant provided "I Corporation" (hereinafter the "the Corporation in this case") with Eul's order to receive daily workers from Eul who engage in construction business, such as "M's Mutual Dismantling Construction, etc." for dissolution and reorganization work, and therefore, D offered "the daily worker under his/her control" to the defendant from May 2017 to October 20 of the same year, and the total amount of labor expenses were stated as "the total amount of the reported wages" as "the amount of the reported wages" in Gap evidence No. 135,965,00 won.

In light of the above facts, the plaintiff alleged that "the total labor cost of daily worker belonging to D" provided to the defendant is KRW 153,895,000,00, which is the total amount of labor cost of the worker under his/her jurisdiction, in excess of the above recognized amount. However, the above table was prepared to receive the defendant's signature at the time of sending human resources by means of obtaining the defendant's signature at each time of sending human resources, and the original copy was offered to the defendant and the copy was kept under his/her pressure. However, it appears that the defendant had credibility to some extent. On the other hand, the defendant prepared the evidence No. 16 and reported it to the Ministry of Employment and Labor.