1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff retired from office while serving as an assistant nurse from C Council members operated by the Defendant from April 16, 2013 to September 15, 2014, and was not paid KRW 2.1 million by the Defendant.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2.1 million won of unpaid wages and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under Article 37 of the Labor Standards Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Labor Standards Act from September 30, 2014 to the date of full payment, which is the following day after 14 days from the date of retirement of the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On February 28, 2014, the Defendant did not conclude a labor contract with the Plaintiff, and the D, which concluded a business cooperation contract with the Defendant, employed the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay the Plaintiff wages.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that Eul employed the plaintiff only with the evidence of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Eul employed the plaintiff. Rather, the evidence Nos. 1 is recognized as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the arguments No. 1. In other words, the plaintiff entered into a labor contract with the original defendant and served in the Council members C operated by the defendant. On the other hand, the defendant decided to entrust the above Council members to D on February 28, 2014, and entered into a business cooperation contract with D. At the time of the above contract, D agreed to succeed to the employment of the plaintiff et al. as the employee of the plaintiff et al. from March 1, 2014. After that contract, it cannot be found that the defendant received a written consent for employment succession from the employees of the plaintiff et al., provided them to D, or entered into a new labor contract with D, after March 3, 2014.