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. Basic facts

A. Upon receiving the Defendant’s request from the Defendant to carry out the instant works at a construction site, the Plaintiffs provided labor at the site of Hwon Rotterdam Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) located in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City from October 14, 2016 to November 28, 2016, but did not receive wages (hereinafter “instant overdue wages”) as follows:

The period of service in arrears No. 1 A during the period of service from October 20 to October 7, 2016, 2016 B B 2,750,000 won from October 20, 2016 to November 28, 2016, to October 28, 2016, C C 3, 200 won from October 14, 2016 to November 7, 2016, to October 2, 2016, 200 won 4D 4D 2,800,000 won from October 24, 2016 to October 27, 2016 to October 27, 2016, E 50 won from October 24, 2016 to October 20, 2008;

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant was in arrears with wages and received a petition to the Seoul Southern District Office of the Seoul Regional Employment and Labor Agency, and the labor inspector issued the “written confirmation of the employer’s overdue wages, etc.” to confirm that the Defendant did not pay wages to the Plaintiffs, following an investigation by the Plaintiff A and the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the argument 1) The plaintiffs asserted that were employed by the defendant and provided labor at the construction site of this case from October 14, 2016 to November 28, 2016, but did not receive wages. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay the wages in this case to the plaintiffs. 2) The defendant asserted that the defendant was liable to pay the wages in this case to the plaintiffs. The defendant did not directly employ the plaintiffs because the defendant was employed by the business owner who was in charge of the construction of this case at the request of I, and did not directly employ the plaintiffs.

B. Considering the following circumstances, the Defendant’s whether the Defendant is the business owner who employs the Plaintiffs, taking into account the health account of the evidence No. 5 as a whole, as to whether the aforementioned evidence was included.