1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On September 20, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff: (a) requested the Defendant, who operates a manpower office, to pay KRW 1.50,00 per capita a daily amount; and (b) introduced five copies per capita a person.

However, the above parts erroneously did not harvest the crops cultivated by the Plaintiff due to misunderstanding of the work with vinyl covered on the Hashes, etc., and incurred damages to the total of KRW 3,2950,000 (=31,000 won + KRW 1,550,000 (per 20,000 won for vinyl replacement x 1,550 won) (per 1,550 won) including personnel expenses incurred in the replacement of vinyls).

Therefore, the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 32950,000.

2. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant was in the position to give specific work instructions to the above persons and direct and supervise them, as it merely purports to have the Plaintiff employed and work the other persons introduced by the Defendant.

Rather, the above parts, as a worker employed by the plaintiff in a short period through a human resources presentation office, play a role of introducing them to the plaintiff, and the defendant merely directs them and gives specific work instructions and takes the responsibility for them.

Therefore, even if the Plaintiff suffered any loss due to the mistake of the father introduced by the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to hold the Defendant liable for contractual liability or tort liability under Article 750 of the Civil Act, which arranged the employment relationship between the Plaintiff and the father.

Furthermore, even if the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is deemed to have been held liable for employer under Article 756 of the Civil Act, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant and the father were in an employee relationship with the employer.

In addition, the plaintiff return to the farm as the plaintiff and has no experience in farming.