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. The reasons for the reversal of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: Article 4-2 of the Labor Standards Act provides that where a construction business has been conducted on two or more occasions under Article 2-11 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry and a subcontractor who is not a constructor under subparagraph 7 of Article 2 of the same Act has a duty to pay wages to workers employed by the subcontractor jointly and severally with the subcontractor. According to Article 44-2 (1) of the Labor Standards Act, where a construction business has been contracted on two or more occasions under subparagraph 11 of Article 2 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry (referring to a contract under which the other party agrees to complete construction works regardless of the name of the prime contract, subcontract, entrustment, etc., and the other party agrees to pay the price for the result of the construction work, if the subcontractor and the subcontractor are not directly and severally liable to pay wages to workers employed by the subcontractor (limited to the person who has been engaged in construction business after registration under other Acts or the Framework Act on the Construction Industry).

The above provision imposes liability upon a subcontractor when the risk is realized due to a subcontractor’s failure to perform his/her duty to pay wages (see Constitutional Court Order 2013HunGa12, Apr. 24, 2014) by committing an illegal act committed against a person whose financial capacity, etc. for construction work is not verified due to the lack of registration of construction business, thereby giving rise to abstract risk of the subcontractor’s failure to pay wages. Therefore, whether a direct contractor remains the construction cost to be paid to the subcontractor.