1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From July 2015 to December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied human resources to approximately 12 construction sites, including the Seoul Songpa-gu Apartment Construction Site contracted by Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) from July 2015 to Defendant A (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

B. Around August 2015, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice on labor cost to the Defendant Company on July 2015. On August 14, 2015, the Plaintiff revoked the issuance of the tax invoice in the name of the Defendant Company after receiving a copy of F’s contact address and G’s business registration certificate from the E division of the Defendant Company, and issued a tax invoice for KRW 39,165,500, total labor cost from July 2015 to December 2015 under the name of the Defendant Company B, which is a business entity of G.

C. The Plaintiff received the amount of KRW 1,400,00 on October 3, 2015 as the amount of human resources supply via the accounts indicated as “GF, B (G), G, and H”, and KRW 18,750,000 on October 4, 2015; KRW 2,150,000 on November 16, 2015; KRW 16,40,000 on November 16, 2015; KRW 4,000,000 on November 18, 2015; and KRW 3,80,000,000 on November 26, 2015; and KRW 18,750,000 on a total of KRW 6,00,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's evidence 3, 4, 7 through 9, 15, 18 through 23, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a human resources supply contract with the Defendant Company upon request of F, which was known to the head of the Defendant Company’s site by introducing C Working Group I, and the Defendant Company supplied human resources at the construction site contracted by C.

Even if F is not an employee of the Defendant Company, as long as F introduces itself as an employee of the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff entered into a human resources supply contract by misunderstanding F as an employee of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company shall be liable for expressive representation.

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 19,646,000,00, which was unpaid from October 2015 to December 2 of the same year.

(2) As to the assertion on the conclusion of human resources supply contract, Gap evidence Nos. 10 to 14, 27, and Eul No. 3.