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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserted that the construction of the EM warehouse and parking lot contracted by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(C) Part of the co-defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter “C”).

(2) The Defendant asserted that, as a direct contractor under Article 44-2 of the Labor Standards Act, the Defendant directly subcontracted part of the instant construction work to F (G Company) and that F was re-subcontracted to C, the Defendant is not the direct contractor of the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is not the direct contractor of the Plaintiff.

B. According to the overall purport of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 8 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and all pleadings, the defendant, as a constructor under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, awarded a contract for the instant construction work from D and subcontracted steel Nos. 35,585,00 to Eul. The plaintiff was employed from July 23, 2015 to August 19, 2015 and provided labor, but C did not pay wages of KRW 1,980,00 to the plaintiff. Since C is not a constructor under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, it can be acknowledged that the fact that the constructor is not a constructor under Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, i.e., if the defendant subcontracted the construction work to F, the defendant could not be viewed as having received the equipment cost from the equipment owner.